Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Calvinistic Methodist or Presbyterian Church of Wales Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Adelphi Estate Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Salford Corporation Bill [Lord],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Street) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Elgin and Lossiemouth and Southwold) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF POOR RELIEF IN ENGLAND AND WALES.

Return ordered,
showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Relief in England and Wales on
the night of the 1st day of January, 1933 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 97, of Session 1931–32)."—(Sir H. Young.)

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

EUROPEAN OFFICERS.

Lord SCONE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India the approximate number of Europeans employed in the upper grades of the Indian Civil Service and in the Indian railways administration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I assume that my Noble Friend is referring to the superior civil services. The number of Europeans in those services on 1st January, 1932, was 2,691, and in the superior railway services, 651.

BRITISH ARMY OFFICERS.

Lord SCONE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India the approximate number of officers in British regiments now serving in India?

Sir S. HOARE: The approximate number of British Army officers, in regimental employ in India, is 2,900.

WAGES (ATTACHMENT FOR DEBT).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Gov-
emment of India have had under consideration the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Indian labour with regard to wages liable to attachment for debt; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation on the subject?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 25th April to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell).

VIZAGAPATAM PORT.

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India what date can now be given for the opening of the Vizagapatam port; and why the delay has occurred ?

Sir S. HOARE: The delay is due mainly to unforeseen difficulties in dredging and maintaining the outer channel. I cannot say on what date the opening will take place, but I do not anticipate any great further delay.

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India have refused permission for medical men in Government service to join the Indian Medical Association; and if lie can state the grounds for such refusal?

Major DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has no information.

PROVINCIAL LOANS FUND.

Mr. T. SMITH: 4.
(for Mr. RHYS DAVIES) asked the Secretary of State for India, whether he will advise the Government of India to consider the adisability of reviewing the working of the Provincial Loans Fund in order to enable local governments to embark upon conversion operations?

Major DAVIES: The administration of the Provincial Loans Fund is in the hands of the Government of India, to whom it is always open to the Provincial Governments to make representations regarding any point on which the rules of the fund appear capable of improvement. Arrangements have already been made which had the effect of reducing in certain cases the rate of interest chargeable on certain advances taken through the fund.

BURMA.

Mr. NUNN: 6.
(for Captain FULLER) asked the Secretary of State for India if he has yet received a report on the rebellion in Burma; and if and when it will be published?

Major DAVIES: My right hon. Friend has from time to time received reports dealing with the rebellion in considerable detail. He has not, however, received a comprehensive report suitable for publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make any statement as to the approximate date on which it is proposed to wind up the Disarmament Conference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): No, Sir.

Captain MACDONALD: Do I understand from that that there is no sign of this Conference ever winding up, and that it is becoming a permanent institution?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE RAILWAY (MANTCHURIAN IRREGULAR TROOPS).

Mr. MOREING: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that under the Protocol of 1901 (Boxer Indemnity) the signatory Powers have the right to occupy the railway between Pekin, Tientsin and Shanhaikuan, and having regard to the forcible interruption of traffic owing to the occupation of the Lutai-Tongshan section by irregular forces under General Li Chichun, His Majesty's Government will confer with the other signatory Powers with a view to occupying the railway and safeguarding communications?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that steps are being taken to regularise the position arising out of the presence of General Li Chichun's forces, and I do not think the suggestion contained in the question would assist towards such a, solution.

Mr. NUNN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the interruption of railway traffic between Tientsin and Shanhaikuan, owing
to the activities of irregular forces under the control of an independent general, threatens a coal shortage in the international settlement of Shanghai; and what steps are His Majesty's Government taking in the matter?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information as to any threatened coal Shortage at Shanghai. In view of the inconvenience and harm to British interests which has been caused by interference with the railway traffic, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Tokyo, has received instructions to represent informally to the Japanese Government the importance of the resumption of the traffic in question. I am informed that a certain number of trains are now running daily from the mines to Chingwangtao.

Mr. NUNN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Minister at Peking as to the activities of General Li Chichun in the neutralised area covered by the recent armistice between China and Japan; and whether, seeing that the general and his forces are disowned by both China and Japan, what steps are being taken for the protection of foreigners in the area, particularly the Kailan mining administration and the people in the summer resorts of Peitaiho, Chinwangtao, and Shanhaikuan?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that general Li Chi-chun occupies a short stretch of the railway between Tangshan and Lutai with about 6,000 Manchurian irregular troops, but that hopes are entertained that the position will be cleared up before long. So far as I am aware, foreigners in this area, and also at Peitaiho, Chinwangtao and Shanhaikuan, are in no danger, and no special measures of protection have therefore been considered necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDO-CHINA (INDIAN BANKERS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state the result of the further representations made on behalf of the Government of India by the British Ambassador in Paris to the French Government regarding the expulsion of Indian bankers by the Government of Indo-China; and whether he can now
state the reason why these British-Indian subjects were expelled?

Mr. EDEN: As a result of the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris, the Governor-General of Indo-China, has rescinded the expulsion orders issued against two of the Indian bankers, who had not yet left the country. Negotiations are continuing between the Government of Indo-China and the Indian bankers, and it is hoped that they will result in an amicable arrangement. As soon as this shall have been reached, the Governor-General Will authorise the expelled bankers to return to Indo-China, and their expulsion decrees will be rescinded in due course. No reason for the expulsion of these Indian bankers was given in the expulsion orders which were issued by the Governor-General under the powers granted to him by the French Colonial legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

AIRCRAFT CONSTRUCTION

Mr. HALES: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to Germany's intention to build socalled police aeroplanes which is a breach of the Versailles Treaty, he will make representations to the League of Nations in order that the clause appertaining to the construction of military aircraft by Germany may be observed?

Mr. EDEN: This question is receiving attention, but my right hon. Friend would prefer to make no statement until the facts have been fully ascertained and considered.

LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to prevent further lose to British subjects, he will request them to lodge for registration all German State and municipal bonds issued in England held by them since July, 1932; and then request the authorities of the various British stock exchanges to refuse to recognise transactions in unregistered German bonds and by that means prevent German Speculators divesting themselves in Britain of their own defaulted public securities?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend has considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but he does not feel able to adopt it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH LEGATION, PEKING (AIR ATTACHE).

Mr. MOREING: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a decision has yet been made upon the recommendation from His Majesty's Minister at Peking that an air attache should be appointed to His Majesty's Legation?

Mr. EDEN: The employment of an air attache to His Majesty's Legation at Peking has been decided upon in principle, and steps are being taken to give effect to this decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

RELEASE OF BRITISH PRISONERS AND TRADE RELATIONS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the recent negotiations which have taken place between himself and M. Litvinoff; and whether he will assure the House that in any negotiations for a trade agreement with the Russian Soviet Government after the release of the British engineers, security will be taken for the payment of the arbitral award of approximately 213,000,000 in favour of Lena Goldfields, Limited, as well as an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the private property of British nationals which has been appropriated without compensation by the Soviet Government?

Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend's recent interviews with Monsieur Litvinoff have been directed to the release of the two remaining Metropolitan-Vickers employés in prison in Moscow. The House will have seen, from the announcement issued by the Foreign Office on Saturday evening last, that the petitions of Messrs. Thornton and Macdonald came before the Praesidium of the Executive Committee of the Soviets last Saturday, and that the sentences have been commuted. Both men left Moscow last night. The purpose for which the embargo was imposed has therefore been attained.
Arrangements will promptly be made to resume the trade negotiations at the point where they were interrupted. In these circumstances, my hon. Friend will appreciate that my right hon. Friend cannot at this moment give any assurance as to the manner in which the claim of the Lena Goldfield, Limited, will be dealt with. Similar considerations apply in the case of claims in respect of the private property confiscated from British subjects.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the House be assured that the Government, in the two cases referred to in the question, will bear in mind that in previous agreements special reference was made to the claims of British nationals?

Mr. EDEN: All matters affecting the trade negotiations that are now to be resumed will be in the hands of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but I will call his attention to the point.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Government undertake not to give any further credits under these schemes while Russia has a favourable trade balance?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Has the hon. Gentleman any information regarding whether the Russian employés of Metropolitan-Vickers. who were convicted at the same time as our two fellow-subjects have been released, or whether it is possible to make any representation on their behalf?

Mr. EDEN: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: In the course of the negotiations that are being carried on, will the question of compensation to Messrs. Thornton and Macdonald be considered?

Mr. EDEN: I think that the statement that I have made shows that the events to which I have referred are closed.

Captain MACDONALD: Do these gentlemen leave Russia with any stigma on their characters, and has any admission been made that they have been wrongfully imprisoned?

Mr. EDEN: I feel sure that my hon. Friend and the country will rest content with the statement that I have made.

Mr. PRICE: Do the Government recognise the bloomer that has been made, and will they now urge on the negotiations with a view to getting our men back to work?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the embargo on the importation of Russian butter or timber is being strictly enforced; if so, since what date; and whether any of these goods have been imported since the embargo?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The proclamation under the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, which has now been revoked, came into force on the 26th April last, and while it was operative the import of Russian butter and timber into this country was prohibited except under licence. As I have explained on several occasions, licences were granted during the existence of the embargo in respect of certain consignments of butter and timber products from the Soviet Union because substantial payment had been made for the goods concerned before the proclamation was issued.

Sir A. KNOX: What does my hon. and gallant Friend call a substantial payment?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think the subject has become somewhat academic, inasmuch as the embargo has attained its object, but I have already stated that we tried to get as near to 100 per cent. as possible.

Mr. PETHERICK: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the embargo was removed after the release of the prisoners, or were the two actions contemporaneous?

Mr. SPEAKER: Colonel Baldwin-Webb.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions what steps are taken by his Department to notify the surviving parent of children that it is possible for the pension granted in respect of the deceased parent to be transferred; and whether, in view of the fact that cases still occur in which the surviving parent
is not aware of this facility and suffers thereby, he will take steps to improve the methods by which such information is made available?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): It would not be practicable to notify the surviving parent individually, as my Department does not usually know if there is a survivor; but the provisions of the Royal Warrant on this matter are specifically brought to the notice of every pensioner of the classes affected, by a printed statement in the pension book which is in his or her keeping. Further, the attention of all local War Pensions Committees has been directed to those provisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (RAILWAY CONTRACT).

Mr. BURNETT: 17.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that a British firm has secured a contract for electrification of the Central Brazil Railway; and if he has been notified as to whether any of the capital required will be raised for the Brazilian authorities by the public flotation of a loan in Great Britain?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am informed that the tender of a British firm for this work has been accepted by the Brazilian authorities, though I understand from the firm concerned that the contract has not yet been signed. I am unable to say at present what arrangements will be made for financing the contract when it is ultimately signed.

Mr. BURNETT: In view of previous defaults by foreign Governments, will the Minister take steps to warn British subjects of the risk of being left with defaulted papers?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: All those matters will be borne in mind.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the Minister urge the Treasury to carry out a proposal to submit all future foreign loans, prior to public flotation here, to an examining committee, in order to prevent further losses to the British investing public through default of foreign borrowers?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is a separate question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

OATS (PRICES).

Lord SCONE: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average price per hundredweight of home-grown and imported oats, respectively, for the period 1st January to 31st May, inclusive, in each of the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): According to returns furnished under the Corn Returns Act and the Corn Sales Act, the average price per cwt. of British oats for the period January to May in 1931 was 6s.; in 1932, 7s. 5d., and in 1933, 5s. l0d. Imported oats are received from a number of countries, both foreign and Empire, and the price varies considerably. III the ease of Argentina the average price per cwt. (ex store at large ports) of oats imported from that country during the three periods in question has been as follows: 1931, 4s. 5d.; 1932, 6s. ed.; and 1933, 5s. 4d.

LIVESTOCK AND MILK PRODUCTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when he anticipates, by Governmental action, that livestock farmers and milk-product producers will receive a price for their products adequate to the cost of production?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the steps that are being taken in pursuance of the Governments policy. I feel sure he will realise that it is not possible to give a date on which a given course of economic policy will produce, an anticipated result.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that it is not only I who am asking this question, but thousands of British farmers who are really discouraged and facing bankruptcy?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that things are getting worse every day, and if something is not done soon, there will be industrial bankruptcy?

Major ELLIOT: I cannot, of course. agree with that assumption. In the case of certain sheep markets, for instance, this year's prices are showing a rise.

IRISH CATTLE (IMPORTS).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that during three months ending
May, 1933, an increase of over 6,500 cattle were imported from Northern Ireland ports into this country as compared with the same three months of 1932; whether he is aware that most of these cattle are from the Irish Free State, who are avoiding duty thereby; and whether he will take steps, in conjunction with Northern Ireland, to protect our home markets from these importations?

Major ELLIOT: Cattle entering Northern Ireland from the Irish Free State are subject to the same duty as cattle exported direct to Great Britain from the Irish Free State. The last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question does not, therefore, arise.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the Minister know that all along the Border it is common knowledge that on any night you like, for 10s., you can get cattle driven in; and will he inquire as to whether it is not the fact that it is these cattle that are being shipped from Northern Ireland ports?

Major ELLIOT: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that that is a question of Customs administration, and it is not for me to answer.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make some inquiries?

Major ELLIOT: As there is a special Department which deals with Customs administration, it would be desirable that a question on Customs administration should be put to the Department responsible.

AUSTRALIA BUTTER.

Mr. LAMBERT: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, in the interest of inter-Imperial trade, he will represent to the Australian government that an export bounty of 3d. per pound on butter, plus another lid. per pound due to depreciated currency, constitutes unfair competition with the British producers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The position with regard to the market for dairy produce in this country has been the subject of consultation with representatives of Dominion Governments, and discussions on the matter axe still proceeding. I am unable at present to make any further statement.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question I have put on the Paper—whether he will represent to the Australian Government that these bounties, owing to depreciated currency, constitute unfair competition with the home producer?

Mr. THOMAS: I think they do.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (WAYLEAVES).

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 21.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will promote legislation to enable him to provide applicants with telephone service in cases where, owing to the unreasonable refusal of the necessary wayleaves, be is at present prevented from doing so?

The POSTMASTER-GENERL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I hope it may be possible for a Bill to be introduced next year to amend the Telegraph Acts, when the possibility of including provisions to meet such cases as my hon. Friend has in mind will be considered.

RADIO TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. DORAN: 22.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that owing to bad reception conditions it frequently occurs that the long-distance radio telephone service transmits without the use of sideband, and that, when this is the case, conversations may be heard by any listener who possesses short-wave apparatus; and whether it is proposed to take steps to prevent this?

Sir K. WOOD: The form of transmission known as "single side-band working" is never employed on any of the short-wave channels of the overseas radio-telephone services. With regard to the question of privacy, I would refer ray hon. Friend to the answer given on the 13th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon).

LONDON POSTAL SERVICE

Mr. HUTCHISON: 23.
asked the Post, master-General whether he will take steps to improve the London postal service, so that letters posted by the last post anywhere within the Metropolitan postal area will be delivered anywhere in that area by the first post in the morning?

Sir K. WOOD: Such letters, should normally be delivered by the first post
the following morning. If my hon. Friend has particulars of correspondence which appears to have been delayed, I will have inquiry made.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Captain DOWER: 24.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the acreage bought, leased and sold, respectively, in each of the years 1930, 1931 and 1932?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): In 1930, the area acquired by the Forestry Commissioners was 58,482 acres, and the area, disposed of was 252 acres. In 1931, the figures were 87,487 acres and 1,045 acres respectively; and in 1932, 86,389 acres and 4,456 acres.

Captain DOWER: 25.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the total acreage under the control of the commissioners; and what proportion of such acreage is directly administered by them and what proportion is leased?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The total acreage under the control of the Forestry Commissioners is approximately 840,000 acres, of which 67 per cent. is administered directly by them, and 33 per cent. is let.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL RETURNS).

Mr. THORNE: 26.
asked the Minister of Health what period is allowed by his Department to local authorities to present returns after the financial year ending in March; and whether any penalties are imposed for non-compliance with the regulations?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Under the statutory provisions in force, the period allowed to local authorities for making their annual returns of receipts and expenditure differs for different classes of authorities. There is no obligation on many of the larger authorities (including county councils and town councils) to render the returns until one month after the completion of the audit for the financial year. The penalty
for non-compliance is a fine not exceeding that; I should have to have notice of the £20, to be recovered by action in the High Court.

Mr. THORNE: Are there any defaulters at the present time?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: There are no defaults.

Mr. THORNE: I mean those who are not sending in returns in accordance with their statutory obligations?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would rather have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).

33 and 34. Mr. RAIKES: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will urge the local authorities responsible for police affairs to equip police houses with telephones in all situations more than two miles distant from a telephonically-equipped police station;
(2) the total number of police stations in the country not yet equipped with telephones; what proportion the number bears to the total number of police stations; and whether he will urge the local authorities responsible for police affairs to remedy any deficiencies in their respective areas?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Telephones are installed in practically every police station in the country, and in about one-half of the houses of constables on rural beats, which are over 5,000 in number. The police authorities of a few counties in which the telephone facilities appeared to be inadequate have already been urged to improve those facilities, and improvements have already been made, and His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, in the course of their inspections, are drawing attention to such deficiencies as remain. The cost of installations in remote districts is sometimes found to be a prohibitive obstacle to the installation of the telephone, and I do not think it would be practicable to lay down any hard-and-fast rule based on distance.

Mr. THORNE: Are the numbers of these police boxes published in the directory?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not sure about that; I should have to have notice of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN VISITORS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES)

Mr. PRICE: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the refusal, except in special circumstances, to grant permission to persons to enter this country for the purpose of taking up employment, he proposes to take any action with respect to two American amateur lawn-tennis players now in this country who have entered into contracts to write articles for a London newspaper, thus entering into competition with British journalists, many of whom are unemployed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: While it is necessary to impose restrictions on aliens seeking regular employment in this country, it would not be in the public interest to restrict the freedom of the Press by preventing foreign visitors from contributing articles to the newspapers.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (LOANS).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will prohibit the granting of loans to Iraq except on the condition that all moneys provided by any such loans should be spent in this country?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As my bon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend has asked intending borrowers to refrain for the present from coming on the market for foreign issues. If the Iraqi Government, which stands in a special relation to His Majesty's Government, should come forward with a request for special treatment, the extent to which their proposals would lead to the placing of orders in this country would be one of the considerations to be taken into account in reaching a decision. I cannot say more in answer to a hypothetical question.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of this special relationship in which the Government of Iraq stand to this Government, they have recently placed orders with Japan, against all previous expectations?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That maybe so, but I have answered my hon. Friend's question.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Would not this be a good opportunity for setting up, for future foreign loan issues, a board modelled on the Public Works Loan Board such as we, have here for domestic municipal issues, so that we. may test the safety of what is required in the shape of loans to be made abroad in order to secure foreign orders?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. LOGAN: 28.
(for Mr. KIRK-WOOD) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he intends to reopen negotiations with the Irish Free State with a view to seeking a settlement of the tariff war which is causing serious loss to workers and trade in both countries?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) on 21st June.

Mr. LOGAN: Would it not be possible to take similar action to that which resulted in the release of the Russian prisoners?

Mr. THOMAS: It has always been possible. If I drew any conclusion, it would be that the Government decided that the release of those prisoners was essential and they took steps to secure it and succeeded. They also believe the debt ought to be paid, and they have taken steps to secure that.

Mr. THONE: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman take the same steps that he used when negotiating with the railway companies?

Mr. THOMAS: I do precisely.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (WAGES, WARWICKSHIRE).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 29.
(for Mr. JOHN) asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the attitude of the Warwickshire coal-
owners who are refusing to agree to continue existing minimum wages now being paid under the district wages agreement; and whether the Warwickshire coalowners were consulted prior to his writing the letter to the secretary of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I satisfied myself that in Warwickshire, as in all other districts, the position after 8th July would be as stated in my letter to the secretary of the Miners' Federation. The difficulty in that district is not a new one, and is that the minimum wage guaranteed under the provisions of the 1931 Act, and since continued by other forms of guarantee, has been a matter of argument. In practice, the point has been of no importance as the ascertained results have, for the last two years, been sufficiently good to determine the wage rates. We may hope that this happy state of affairs will continue, and the point raised in the question will remain of academic interest only.

Mr. GRENFELL: If it is not going to make any difference in practice, why are the coalowners pressing for a reduction in the minimum percentage?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Gentleman reads the answer carefully, he will see that the point is dealt with. It always has been since 1931 a matter of argument in that district, but it has not arisen practically, and I see no reason to believe that it will.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that in the event of an ascertainment showing reduced proceeds, the reduction in wages would not take place?

Mr. BROWN: That is a hypothetical point. The original question raised an issue which has been the subject of argument in an academic sense since 1931.

Mr. GRENFELL: If the fall in wages took place, there would be no argument about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (MEDICAL SERVICE, HEBRIDES).

Mr. LOGAN: 30.
(for Mr. KIRK-WOOD) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring before the Department of Health the advisability of organising an air-ambulance service for
the conveyance of urgent medical and surgical cases from the Hebrides and Western Isles to the hospitals and infirmaries in Glasgow; and will he consider the advisability of arranging a scheme, in co-operation with the Saint Andrews Ambulance Association and the Highland Medical Service, so that there can be co-operation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The sugestion contained in the question involves a, number of practical difficulties which would require most careful consideration before its adoption.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONETARY POLICY.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will propose some practical policy to ensure the use of cheap money, the provision of which he has advocated to the central banks of the world?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which my right hon. Friend made before the Monetary and Economic Conference on 14th June, which has been published as Command Paper 4357.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Am I to take it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would view with approval the expenditure of public money provided it was of a capital character and likely in the future to be remunerative?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend's question is susceptible of answer neither in the affirmative nor the negative.

Mr. THORNE: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the object the Government has in view by keeping up the French exchange rate; the amount of French francs purchased by the Government during the two weeks ending 28th June; and the amount of gold purchased by the Government through the Exchange Equalisation Account?

42 and 43. Mr. MABANE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he can assure the House that no agreement will be made to link sterling with the currencies of the gold-standard cur-
rencies, namely France, Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Belgium, without the prior consent of the House of Commons;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the Finance Act of 1932 declares the purpose of the Exchange Equalisation Account to be the prevention of undue fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling, his attention has been called to the fact that the exchange value of sterling is fluctuating unduly in terms of the dollar; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this undue fluctuation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: For reasons of public policy, as has frequently been stated in the House, particulars of the transactions on the Exchange Equalisation Account cannot be published. As regards the broad objectives of policy my right hon. Friend desires me to refer the bon. Members to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) on 26th June and to say that he regrets that he is not in a position to add anything to that answer.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that you are using this fund to keep up the French exchange for the purpose of assisting a group of bankers who lent £30,000,000 to France to the detriment of our exporters to France?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry I can accept neither the bon. Member's premises nor his conclusions.

Mr. MABANE: I do not think my question was answered. There is no reference to the Exchange Equalisation Fund in it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer was made by implication in the reply to which I have referred.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that you used the Exchange Equalisation Fund for the purpose of regulating sterling and the dollar and that you have made a bad job of it and have now given it up altogether?

Oral Answers to Questions — WHOLESALE COMMODITY PRICES.

Mr. MADANE: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the index figure of wholesale commodity prices in this country in August, 1932, and on the latest available date?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have been asked to reply. The Board of Trade index number of wholesale prices (1930 = 100) was 83.3 in August, 1932, and 83.1 in May, 1933.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTORING ACCIDENT, HAMPSTEAD HEATH.

Mr. HALES: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the motor accident which occurred last week on the North End Road between Hampstead Heath and Golders Green station, in which no less than nine cars were involved and a wall demolished owing entirely to the reckless driving of motorists on the hill; and whether he will take steps to have a warning sign erected and to impose a speed limit of 15 miles per hour in order to prevent a repetition of this occurrence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): My attention has been drawn to the accident on the North End Road on 20th June which I understand occurred during a heavy rain storm. I doubt whether the erection of a warning sign would be appropriate as the road does not present any special element of danger of which a motorist should receive warning. The question of an application for a speed limit rests with the highway authority concerned.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that in this case and many others, accidents are caused by crawling down the middle of the road, and can the hon. and gallant Gentleman approach the police with a view to issuing a warning against this practice I

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that one point of this road is exceedingly narrow and that there is frequently excessively fast driving along this narrow stretch?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I understand that the section of the road in question is 32 feet wide.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. LAMBERT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when the British delegation for
discussion of the American War Debt will leave; and whether the instructions to such delegation will, prior to its departure, be laid before this House?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I am not yet in a position to make any statement in reply to the first part of the question. In reply to the second part of the question, the policy of this country is wellknown, and the procedure suggested would, in my opinion, be unprecedented and undesirable.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the House of Commons to have no voice whatever in the matter? Is the delegation to go without any instructions from the House?

Mr. BALDWIN: I certainly think such procedure would be unprecedented. I can recall no similar case where instructions to delegates have been laid before the House.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman recall any case where Great Britain owed any other country anything?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement on Wednesday in order that the general principle of payment can be discussed? Will he not take the House into his confidence, as it may be the only opportunity before the House adjourns.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know that that would fall to the Lord President. The hon. Member is at perfect liberty to discuss the matter provided it falls within the Rules of the House, and I have no doubt that if the matter was raised, the Foreign Secretary would be in a position to say something about it.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing some Press Lords on the committee?

Oral Answers to Questions — WINSON GREEN PRISON (DEATH).

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: 32.
asked the Home Secretary with reference to the case of Thomas Parker, who died in Winson Green Prison while serving a sentence of 14 days' imprisonment for sleeping out, if he will state what action he has taken with reference to the imposition of such a penalty; and whether he intends to circularise magistrates generally on the subject?

Sir J. GILMOUR: For the reasons given in the Debate on Friday, I should not he justified in circularising magistrates on this subject. It is the duty of the courts to enforce the law and the latest available statistics show that in 1931, out of 1,612 persons charged with this offence, the number sent to prison was only 330. I am however proposing to have some inquiries made as to the circumstances in which it is the practice of the Police to charge persons with this offence.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this man was sentenced the magistrates had no records as to his civil past?

Captain GOWER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the result of the inquiry which he is making will be given to the House?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes, Sir, probably in some form at a. later stage.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the Home Secretary realise that if everyone who slept out, especially during this weather, was pinched we should have our prisons full i

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was conducting an inquiry into this particular case as well?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake one?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No.

Mr. JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why we may not have an inquiry into this ease which has been given so much publicity during the weekend and which reflects on the administration of the particular prison?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We had a very full Debate on the subject on Friday, and I have nothing to, add.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the question on the Adjournment at some convenient date.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY INSPECTOR'S REPORT.

Mr. T. SMITH: 36.
(for Mr. RHYS DAVIES) asked the Home Secretary when the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories will be issued?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The report will be issued this month, but I cannot at present give the precise date.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARKHURST PRISON.

Captain P. MACDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary if it is a fact that an attempted outbreak was discovered at Parkhurst Prison over the weekend, and, if so, have the leaders of this alleged plot been identified, and what steps are being taken to see that a similar incident does not occur in future?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am glad to have this opportunity of contradicting a highly coloured and entirely misleading story which appeared in a. Sunday paper. There was no plot for a concerted outbreak at Parkhurst Prison during the week-end, and the newspaper account seems to be based on an incident which occurred 10 days ago, when the prison authorities discovered that five convicts had formed a plan to escape. Special watch was kept and the men were found to be in possession of certain illicit articles which were no doubt intended to be used for the purpose of escape. The plan was a crude one which never had any chance of success. The prison authorities aye incessantly on the watch for attempts at escape, and the recent incident does not create any ground for apprehension.

Captain MACDONALD: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a careful watch will be kept on all workshops to see that prisoners are not given an opportunity of making keys and smuggling them into their cells as has been done in this case?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes, Sir, every step is taken to see that precautions are taken in these matters.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take any action against the paper concerned which published this account?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is an unfortunate fact that there is an increasing tendency
on the part of a certain section of the Press in this country to abuse the privileges which they possess.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Will my right hon. Friend say which paper it was that published this sensational account?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, the "News of the World."

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE)

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Lord Eustace Percy and Mr. Turton; and had appointed in substitution: Major Astor and Mr. James Duncan.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Sea-fishing Industry Bill): Major Muirhead and Sir Arthur Michael Samuel; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Thomas Cook and Mr. Salt.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (STOURBRIDGE) BILL.

Reported [Provisional Order not confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY.] Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1933.

CLASS VI.

FORESTRY COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for a Grant in Aid of the Forestry Fund." [Note.—R150,000 has been Voted on account.]

3.25 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The general duty of promoting the production and the supply of timber in the United Kingdom is vested in the Forestry Commissioners, who possess all the necessary powers to acquire and dispose of land and to grow and to sell timber. They may also make grants to landowners and to local authorities for the planting of trees, establish forestry workers' holdings wherever necessary for carrying on the forestry service, promote research and education, and collect relevant statistics. It is laid down that one of the commissioners shall always be a Member of this House, so that we may be provided, through his agency, with such information as we may desire. For many years past my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) has filled this, office with great skill and industry. Indeed, only this afternoon he was authoritatively answering questions which had been addressed to him. My hon. and gallant Friend will reply on the Debate. It also happens that we are fortunate in having two other Forestry Commissioners as Members of this House—my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). The Committee, therefore, will not lack expert assistance in the course of the discussion. I am personally very glad to leave the Debate under their efficient control and supervision.
My reason for rising is that the expenses of the Commission are defrayed out of a fund known as the Forestry Fund which is replenished from two sources, firstly, from its own working receipts, and secondly, from annual grants-in-aid voted by Parliament. In order that the Commission might make its plans ahead the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed in 1931 to ask Parliament for 450,000 a year for five years. Last year for special reasons the Vote was £447,000 or £3,000 short of the agreed sum. The present Estimate is for the full stipulated amount. Adding this to its working receipts of approximately £150,000 a year, there will be at the disposal of the Commissioners nearly £600,000 during each of the five years. This sum will enable thorn to maintain a planting programme of at least 20,000 acres a year, and to acquire a similar area of plantable land each year so that the rate of planting may he evenly pursued. It will also enable them to maintain grants to landowners and local authorities on the same scale as hitherto, and to continue their assistance for re-search and education and their other ancillary activities as in the past.
The Commissioners are already in charge of roughly 850,000 acres of land distributed among 180 forests in England, Scotland, and Wales. The area is increasing, as I have already indicated to the Committee, at the rate of about 20,000 plantable acres annually. Of these 850,000 acres, 284,000 acres consist of woodlands, most of them planted by the Commissioners. Approximately, 95,000 additional acres have been planted by local authorities and private landlords with the assistance of State grants. There have been established nearly 1,200 forest workers' holdings, housing approximately 5,000 persons. It has been the policy of all Governments in the past, and it is the policy of the present Government, to allow every possible discretion to the Commissioners in the utilisation of the resources placed at their disposal by Parliament. My hon. Friends who are members of the commission, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye will be able to tell the Committee in the course of the Debate exactly the activities in which the Commission has engaged and what are its intentions for the future. Having discharged my formal task, I am happy to
leave the charge of the rest of the Debate to my hon. Friends.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
It may appear ungracious on my part to move a reduction of the Vote. After the very kindly speech to which we have just listened and the clear and concise statement of the Financial Secretary, my task is not made any easier, but it is one of the Rules of the House that my only opportunity for questioning the Vote is by moving a formal reduction of it.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: On a point of Order. I understood the Financial Secretary to state that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) is a member of the commission. Is it in order for a commissioner to move a reduction of the Vote for his own Department?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) is one of the Forestry Commissioners, and, although it would seem a somewhat unusual step for a member of the commission to move to reduce the Vote of his own Department, I cannot see anything out of order in it.

Mr. GRENFELL: If the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Mr. Knight) had exercised a little patience, he would have understood the reason for my action.

Mr. KNIGHT: It is so astonishing.

Mr. GRENFELL: Many things are astonishing in this House. It so happens that I have to fulfil the dual role of a member of the Forestry Commission and a Member of His Majesty's Opposition. In that dual capacity I shall try to discharge my duty as efficiently as I can. I shall speak in the presence of my two senior colleagues on the Commission, who have superior technical knowledge, and, if I attempt to exaggerate or to emphasise unduly the points that I wish to make, they will be able to correct me. In moving the reduction, another anomaly presents itself. It is not really the case that I want to reduce the Vote, because I desire to ask for more. My complaint is that the Financial Secretary, with his usual kindness, offers us £450,000, and he seeks the approval of the Committee for that amount, but I want him to give us
more than £450,000, and I am taking this opportunity of stating the Opposition's reasons for desiring the larger amount.
It will be remembered, if we carry our minds back to pre-War days, that there was great national concern regarding the conditions of our woodlands and the extent of the acreage occupied by woodlands as compared with European countries. In 1914 the acreage of our woodlands was just over 3,000,000, or 4 per cent. of the superficial area of the United Kingdom, compared with Germany, which had 26 per cent. of her superficial area covered with woodlands, and Belgium and France, 18 per cent. All the European countries, with the exception of Portugal, showed a larger proportionate area occupied by woodlands than did the United Kingdom. Moreover, there has been in existence for many years in many European countries a State forestry system which has been a matter of great pride and looked upon as of great national importance, particularly in Germany, France and Austria.
We were in the unhappy position in 1914 that our relative area of woodlands was very small and the annual yield of timber was very low, with the result that when the War broke out our dependence upon foreign timber became very apparent, and, with the increased demand for timber for home consumption and for use at the Front, and the difficulties of transport of timber from abroad, the position became very grave. One of the first things we did in 1915 was to set up a Timber Supply Committee, presided over by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). I think the present chairman of the Commission was secretary of that body. The committee ultimately delivered a report, which I would briefly summarise as follows:
(1) That the area planted and the yield of timber was unsatisfactory and called for urgent remedial measures in the interests of national economy.
(2) During the five years preceding the War the average annual importations of timber similar to that produced in the British Isles were equivalent to 550,000,000 cubic feet of standing timber, or 12 times as much as the yield of our own woodlands.
(3) The area of land capable of growing firstclass conifer timber of the same character as that imported is between 3,000,000 and 5,000,000 acres, 2,000,000 acres of which could be devoted to timber without appreciably reducing the home production of food.
(4) There is a grave risk in our dependence on imported timber in time of war.
(5) An area of 1,700,000 acres should be planted, twothirds of which should be planted in 40 years. We advise that 150,000 acres should be planted by the State and 50,000 by public bodies and private persons assisted by grants.
They referred to the need for obtaining arable land and said that:
(6) A limited area of arable land should be acquired with the present sites, in order to provide small holdings for forest workers, partly as a means for settling discharged soldiers on the land.
(7) State afforestation will begin to provide pit-wood from the fifteenth year. By the fortieth year the plantations made in the first 10 years will contain sufficient pit-wood for two years in case of emergency.
(8) A forestry authority should be set up, equipped with funds and powers to survey, purchase and plant lands.
(9) The authority should be empowered to make limited grants to public bodies or private individuals for replanting or for new afforestation for the first 10 years after the War.
The tenth recommendation was that provision should be made to invest £15,000,000 during the first 40 years and that after that the scheme should be self-supporting. That is a summary of the report of the Timber Supply Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, which led to the passing of the Forestry Act and the establishment of the Forestry Commission.
The Forestry Commission came into existence in November, 1919, and has since been actively engaged on the task given to it by this House. Parliament has been informed each year of the work done in the annual report issued by the commission. The lath annual report is now due and will be in the hands of Members in a few days, but, unfortunately, it is not available for the Debate to-day. The 12 annual reports give in fair detail an account of the activities of the Forestry Commission. Of all the things done in this country under national authority nothing is more encouraging than the work done by the Forestry Commission. I have been privileged to be a member of the body for the last three or four years, and I have been exceedingly pleased with the efficiency and ease with which this new machine is doing its work. The Forestry Commission is now responsible for 180 forests, some of them
in the initial stages of development, others which have been in course of development for 10 or 12 years. There are 93 forests in England and Wales and 79 in Scotland, under the control of an assistant commissioner for England and Wales and an assistant commissioner, with his own staff, for Scotland, planting and preparing these forest units for a considerable yield of timber when harvest time comes 40 years ahead. The commission also is in possession of more than 800,000 acres of land, some of it suitable for agriculture and some of it suitable only for the growing of timber.
Up to September, 1932, the acquisitions of land by lease and feu for England and Wales ran to 116,839 acres, and by purchase to 215,377 acres. In Scotland the acquisitions of land by lease and feu were 147,047 acres, and by purchase, 229,745 acres. The combined area of land for England and Wales purchased outright or leased is more than 700,000 acres, and of that total about 280,000 acres is planted. A large area of land is held in reserve and is in course of preparation for planting. The land acquired needs to be drained and fenced, and it is always necessary to hold a large reserve of land in hand in order that the planting programme may be carried through expeditiously.
The figures show that 280,000 acres have been planted and that about. 1,200 small-holdings have been acquired. The cost has been very low. The average price paid for the land is less than £2 Ws. per acre, but when regard is had to the land only and to the acquisition of certain necessary buildings, then the average cost is about' £3 7s. per acre—a very low price. The average price paid for land on lease is about 2s. 9d. per acre. These 1,200 holdings are new holdings, with an average of about 11 acres of land, and they have been acquired at a total cost of £499 per holding, a very low price indeed having regard to the remoteness of the districts and the cost of conveying the materials necessary for building purposes. The average price of the land for these smallholdings is £71, and the price of the buildings, drainage and water supply is £428. Another interesting thing to remember is that not only are these holdings occupied by 1,100 people employed in the forestry service, but that there is a growing population of
wives and children reaching an aggregate of about 5,000 people, who have been settled on the land by the operations of the Forestry Commission. Further, these people possess stock, herds of cattle, sheep and goats, which in the aggregate amount to about £37,000—a very encouraging feature of this part of the work of the Commission.
It is perhaps difficult and delicate for a comparatively new member of the Commission to make these submissions to the Committee, but I think the Committee should know how much the country is indebted to men like the late Lord Lovat, who was a pioneer in this work, an enthusiast, and to Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, for years the Chairman of the Commission, whose work has been taken up by the present Chairman of the Commission. Hon. Members ought to know something of the work of the late Assistant Commissioner for England and Wales, a man devoted to his duty, efficient, with untiring energy and enthusiasm, and responsible largely for the success of the work that has been done. The right hon. Gentleman invited us to pay attention to the staff of the Commission, and to approve of the salaries, allowances, etc., set forth in the Estimates. We do so readily. I have seen the staff at work, at the desk and in the field, and I am pleased that the right hon. Member for North Cornwall and the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) have been able to secure the services of such a fine staff. Details of the salaries, wages and travelling allowances of the staff will be found in the Civil Estimates for 1933, as will also the salaries, wages and allowances of the headquarters' staff, the Assistant Commissioners' staffs as well as the education and research staffs. Then you come to the very important nonpersonal elements in this Estimate. You find that the acquisition of land for this year is estimated to reach a figure of £43,000. The hon. Gentleman said that it was the intention of the Commission to plant 20,000 acres per annum. Only barely sufficient is the money allowed for the purchase of land, to carry on the measure of annual planting without diminishing the area of land in hand. It would be impossible under this Estimate to acquire one acre beyond the 20,000 acres, even under the most favourable conditions of purchase.
Next we come to Subhead E, "Forestry Operations." There you find references to buildings and stores and all the expenses of running this huge business of 180 separate units all over the Kingdom, employing 3,000 to 4,000 persons in the busy season. For all the enterprise of replanting and re-afforesting our country this year there is only £380,000 allowed for actual forestry operations. There have been advances, loans and grants to local authorities and private persons who desire to plant. Then we come to the last page of the Estimate, and find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking credit for something which is not a grant from the Treasury but which is already an income enjoyed by the Commission. That is a sum of £150,000 approximately, which falls to the Commission year by year from the use of their own property and the payments made to them for rents and sales of stock and produce. That will be found on page 116 of the Estimate.
The Financial Secretary said that he is this year making provision for a grant-in-aid of £450,000, plus £150,000 per annum, making a total of £600,000 which the Commission can spend each year for all the purposes for which it was established, the acquisition of land, the planting and cultivation of land in readiness for planting. All these operations are now enabled to go forward for the next five years, because there is financial provision, safe and assured, to the amount of £600,000. I invite hon. Members to look at the last item of the Estimate. It shows how the amount of money and the number of men employed are spread over the different classes of operations. We find in the last paragraph that:
In England and Wales adult male time-workers are paid a minimum weekly wage of 35s.; men employed on piece-work earn approximately 25 per cent. above the time-work rates. In Scotland a large percentage of the work is done by time-workers, and wages vary according to local circumstances.
The Forestry Commission cannot be accused of being bad employers. It has been the policy to pay a reasonable wage, having regard to the circumstances. It has sometimes been charged against us that we are paying higher wages than is the agricultural industry in the areas concerned. But I do not think the Committee will complain when they know that the minimum paid to time-workers stands
at 35s., and that piece-work men, who work specially hard—there are all manner of inducements to improve output—are entitled to earn more than 35s. I think the average runs to about £2 2s. for all the men engaged full time in the industry.
In the annual report last year there is a statement to which I will refer. Here is the history of what took place when the National Government was formed. Under the instigation of the May Committee and the pressing demand for economy, a changè was made in the Commission's programme for 1929, and considerable cuts and reductions were made in the programme. When Mr. Snowden, as he then was, was at the Treasury as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he requested information regarding the future of forestry and invited the Commission to make a statement to him regarding planting prospects. When assured that the Commission could usefully spend £1,000,000 per annum in afforestation, he very willingly advanced the £1,000,000, and declared that £1,000,000 would be available for the next five years if he had power as Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue the amount.
In 1931, when the programme was larger, the planting was to be on an expanding scale, beginning at 25,000 acres in 1929 and rising to 44,000 acres in 1938. The holdings programme was to be at the rate of 350 holdings yearly for the first five years, and 250 holdings yearly for the next five years. In order to carry out this programme it would be necessary to acquire each year 60,000 acres of planted land and 2,500 acres of agricultural land. It was estimated that the total cost of the main scheme and ancillary operations such as assistance to private forestry, education and so on, would amount to £11,275,000 for the decade 1929 to 1938 inclusive. Working receipts were estimated at £2,160,000, and the net contribution from the Exchequer was consequently expected to be £9,115,000. In consequence of the May Committee's recommendation the Forestry Commission was induced to accept a smaller grant for that year. That reduction of the programme was made with the idea that it would be only temporary, and that at the first possible opportunity the earlier programme would be resumed.
We have now come to the point at which we abandon our 10 years plan and are limited to a five year plan. It is strange how National Governments copy Soviet Russia and work in these quinquennial periods, with estimates and expenditure for five years in advance. That kind of thing is contagious, but one does not expect a National Government here to take its example from Soviet Russia. We have now a more modest five year plan. Instead of spending £11,000,000 in 10 years, we are limited to the expenditure of £6,000,000 in the same 10 years. It is £600,000 per annum which the Commission can now spend. The Economy Acts are responsible. That has removed the handicap and the difficulty placed in the way of the Commission by uncertainty regarding the amount of money to be spent and the programme to he carried out. When the Geddes Committee made its recommendation there was considerable dislocation of the work of the Commission. Again, when the compulsory economy, after the report of the May Committee, was imposed, there were some losses which I do not need to stress. They were inevitable losses due to the curtailment of the earlier programme and the preparation which had to be made years in advance if the planting programme was to be carried through.
The Committee must recognise that if there is to be a change and a variation in the amount of money year by year at the disposal of the Commission, there must be dislocation of work which entails expense. The Commission should decide in advance to spend so much money each year, and that money should be the largest possible sum, because there are always the overhead charges of the various offices, the headquarters and the divisional offices and staffs. All these overhead charges cost a higher percentage when the sum is small than when it is large. If, therefore, one wants real economy, the money spent in planting should be as large as possible to the total cost. With regard to the case for restriction, based mainly on grounds of economy but largely on grounds of national necessity, one finds woodlands in various stages of cultivation, some very well kept and others very badly managed. Even an amateur can see examples of what one might be permitted to call neglect. The 3,000,000 acres of woodland is not representative of ideal conditions.
Every forester knows that even that limited area is not in the condition it might be.
There are only 280,000 acres belonging to the State, these being less than 15 years of age and growing in various parts of the country. They are generally well looked after and protected from the depredations of vermin, from damage by fire, and against all the dangers of growing timber. These plantations of 280,000 acres of land will not yield timber for some time to come. Those who are interested and know the risks which this country underwent from 1914 to 1918 will wish to place the country at the earliest possible moment beyond the danger of similar risk. Those who know something about forestry are very keen to see this planting and the cultivation of woodlands expedited, and a higher standard of independence in the matter of timber supplies maintained for this country. There is the question of employment, and perhaps the Committee will be glad to know that expenditure in forestry provides the largest volume of employment for each £1,000,000 spent in this country. There is no industry, there is no relief work and there is no public enterprise of any kind which could give as much employment for £1,000,000 as does this industry. Time after time I have been told in this House that relief work costing £1,000,000 gives direct employment to 2,000 people, and indirect employment to an additional 2,000, making a total of 4,000 people. In the forestry service we can find employment, on the wages to which I have referred, for 7,400 people at a cost of £1,000,000. From that standpoint alone it is a very great inducement to the Government to find additional sums for the purpose of afforestation.
Then comes the question of return on capital. I am not as expert in this subject as I would like, and I would not venture to trespass upon the kindness of the Committee in giving in detail the information I possess, but it has been very fully gone into, and when Mr. Snowden made his inquiry in 1929, the Forestry Commission submitted an estimate to show that over a term of years—not less than 40—investment on afforestation would yield at the rate of 3.7 per cent. compound interest when the harvest of the forest was being gathered, and when forests became self-maintaining.
Commencing in 1919 afforestation carried forward at the rate recommended by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall, and since carried through by the Commission at that rate, will be self-supporting in 40 years, and, spread over the ensuing period, will show from the commencement of operations an average yield of 3.7 per cent. That is on the authority of the Commission, and not on any statement I make.
I referred to the question of steadiness of progress. It is vital to the success of forestry operations that the Forestry Commission and the officers in the field, those responsible for the planting and carrying out of the operations, should know what measure of work they have to do year by year. Our party has laid very great stress in this House for many years past for upon the conservation of our national resources. Mr. Keir Hardie always insisted upon the benefits of afforestation as a good thing for the whole of the people in this country. On this industry there should be erected a superstructure of forestry industries by the utilisation of timber so as to provide a. steady, secure livelihood for a large number of our people.
On the ground that we are really seeking the national interests, I stand here to-day as a Member of His Majesty's Opposition and as a Member of the Commission, a position which I hold with equal pride, to urge the stabilisation of the programme of afforestation, not at the present level of £450,000 per annum. I would again ask the Financial Secretary to consider and consult with his chief and the officials of his Department to see whether, as a means of obtaining direct employment for a large number of people now unemployed, as a means of resettling the largest possible number of our people on the countryside, and as a means of regenerating the woodlands of this country and providing us with an ample supply of timber for all possible future needs, he will bring forward an Estimate which will enable the Commission to resume the programme for 1929–38 as originally intended.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) had moved to reduce this Vote by £250,000, I think I should have voted for it, and if he had moved to reduce it
rather more, I most certainly would have voted for it, not because I have any hostility to afforestation—indeed very much the reverse—but because of the point of view he himself expressed. He told us quite clearly the reason for the present condition of a good many of our woodlands, namely, the excessive burden of taxation, and I very strongly object to a system which, first of all, strips all the rural industries bare of capital, and, when you have killed them, you are forced, as in the case of forestry, sugar beet and many other things, to subsidise them to keep your people at work. That is why I object to these sums being spent on forestry, and also why I object very strongly to the hon. Member coming here to-day, and with a modesty, a tact and all those other great qualities which endear him to us—although we may disapprove of him occasionally—asking the Financial Secretary, who, in these matters, is young and innocent, to take £100 away from this grant in the hope that he will give double the amount of grant for another year or for 10 years to come.
May I give one or two illustrations of what I have seen in going about the country in an ordinary way, and why 1 think it would be far better if this money were spent naturally, rather than by a set of people called Forestry Commissioners? Although some of the ablest people in this country have dealt and are dealing with forestry—everyone respected and admired the late Lord Lovat—directly you take them away from private landowning and make them State Commissioners, they seem to be far less efficient than they would be in their ordinary everyday work. I spend part of my time near Glenshiel in Rossshire, where for eight or nine years I have been watching the planting there. They have been planting on ground which anyone who knew the district would know would not bear trees, and anyone who knew the district could tell them quite simply why it would not bear trees. I very often go, sometimes in a car, sometimes riding and sometimes walking, along the road and have watched them for at least seven or eight years, and the bulk of those trees at the present time are not as high as an umbrella. There is at least one crop which has flourished in that particular district, but I am not going to
bring up that case. Here is a direct illustration where no one who knows the locality could say that it was land likely to grow trees. As a preliminary one would expect that it would have been. ascertained what means of transport there were to get the timber away easily. It is conceivable that you might get it down to the sea or away by at least 25 miles of road. This is one illustration that I have come across where they have offended against the cardinal factors, as I understand them, in connection with timber growing.
If you go to Garve and along the Garve-Ullapool road in Rossshire, to take another example, you leave the natural timber country and go on to the higher ground which is not likely to be forest-producing. It is a very cold country and when you come to it you have left behind the natural Scotch fir country. You come to a most beautiful natural birch wood but it is mostly bare ground. I do not say that in different circumstances it might not be possible to do something with it but the Forestry Commission are proceeding to plant there in spite of the fact that the prospects are not hopeful and that such plantations as have taken place in the past under similar conditions have mainly failed. There have been very expensive operations there including the building of a bridge, and various difficulties have had to be overcome. That is another illustration of where a beautiful natural bit of woodland is being destroyed in order to grow other timber under very expensive conditions, and in a most exposed position with a great barren waste in front up to the top of Wyvis. You cannot possibly expect to grow timber profitably there and to get it away to be sold.
There is yet another illustration which I came across near Swaffham, in Norfolk. There I saw a large plantation and I asked the local people what chance the trees had of growing. I was told that some of the trees would grow quickly at the beginning, but that it was impossible that they would grow to any considerable height. In the course of two or three days in that neighbourhood I looked around and I saw where some of the trees were growing on the edge of a gravel pit. The reason why Scotch firs would not flourish in that soil was there for anyone to see who took the trouble to go into the matter. The roots of the
trees would not go down into the soil in the normal way at all. There were other trees growing there but one could not help seeing that the soil was quite unsuitable for firs. In all these cases the people who live in these localities know that what is being done is wrong, and I am convinced that until the Forestry Commission get out of doing this kind of thing, the results of their efforts will be more harmful to forestry than beneficial.
Having given those illustrations I wish to give a case on the opposite side. That is the plantation which one finds at Invergarry, and all along the banks of the Fort William and Inverness Canal. There you have natural slopes suited to the purpose, close to the canal and the railway, so that it is possible to get the timber away easily and it is profitable when it is cut or at least it may be profitable, if any profit is being made out of timber when it is sold. Furthermore, the timber will probably grow quickly on that site. The development of that area is worth doing, but I wish the Commissioners would try to avoid those places where they are obviously offending against all the laws of timber planting, which, as I understand them, require first that the timber should have a reasonable chance to grow, and secondly, that when it is grown means of transport are available so that it can be made saleable. There are places in the Highlands and elsewhere in which timber was plentiful during the War but it was quite unsaleable, even with the artificially high prices then obtaining, because it was so far away from any means of transport.
Another point which I would make on this Estimate is that it would be better to leave this money in the pockets of the taxpayers than to use it in the way I have described. Supposing that it was the policy of the Government to encourage the growth and use of British timber, and that this Department was engaged in carrying out a Government policy of that kind, that would be a different matter. But there is no policy of that kind. Instead we find two or three curious things in this connection. The Post Office is one of the greatest buyers of timber and yet we find telegraph poles made from imported foreign timber along the roads in the midst of British timber which is
unsaleable. Is that practical or economical? We subsidise timber heavily in this respect, and at the same time one hears a great deal from the Secretary of State for the Dominions about iron sleepers for railways and things of that kind. It seems to me to be almost a contradiction in terms.
I realise the value of forestry, but we must ask ourselves: is timber really a thing which is going to be much used in the future? Our ancestors in the time of Queen Elizabeth had to grow oak trees, but that was for a, very practical purpose. It was for the building of our fleet of that time. To-day, the taxpayer is compelled to pay for the growing of so many fir trees and other trees of that kind, at a time when steel and iron are coming into use more and more in the building trade. We must ask ourselves: are we expending our money usefully in that direction rather than in the development of our iron and steel industry? There is one exception to the general rule in that respect and. as this is not a matter on which parties are divided, I would like hon. Members to consider this aspect of the question. I think that in mining areas where the face of the countryside has been disfigured by mining operations in the past and where there are great numbers of people out of work, there is a good case for afforestation schemes, in many instances, even though they might not be profitable. People could be given temporary work in such plantations and some of them might even get permanent work in keeping the schemes going in those areas. You would be making those districts better to look at and also helping people who are at present unemployed. If the Government put forward some scheme of that kind I think that probably the lam. Member for Gower and I would be more in agreement upon it than on other matters. But I would not go in for afforestation schemes of the kind which I have described in far distant areas where there is no special problem to be dealt with as there is in the mining areas.
I would also direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that we spend a considerable proportion of this money on officials. There is always a wastage as between the pound which goes out of the taxpayer's pocket and the pound which goes in wages in schemes of this kind.
Why should not the Government, instead of spending the money in this way, consider giving some form of direct encouragement? We had the coal subsidy at one time and other industries have been subsidised, but would it not be better if instead of subsidising you said to people who were planting locally, "You can expend the money which you would otherwise give in taxation over a period of years on something which is productive in your locality." That would be much better than merely collecting the money and spending it in this way, especially when we consider that taxation, such as Estate Duty is one of the most effective ways of drying up the resources of people in the various localities.
I do not know what the original authorities who dealt with these forms of taxation would have to say on the present position. I cannot conceive that it was ever imagined that we would reach the present position, and the financiers of the 'eighties or 'nineties would indeed be astonished at grants of the kind which we are considering to-day. I urge on the Government not to encourage more expenditure in this direction. I ask them not to assent to the wish of the hon. Member for Gower that they should go on increasing these amounts, but rather to turn their minds to the direct cause of our present troubles which is that they are denuding the countryside of capital and consequently of men.
I ask them to consider whether, instead of dealing with this matter through departments and officials and commissions —no doubt composed of excellent people—they would not do better to refrain from imposing burdens of taxation and encourage people to spend their money in developing their own countryside. In that way I suggest you will get the best results and get them in the cheapest way. We have heard to-day about the 3,000,000 acres of woodland and about the condition in which much of it is at present. Would it not be better if we took steps to restore these woodlands to their natural state of forest production instead of going outside them to all kinds of new places where we have to undertake vast expenditure and where as far as I can see we are not likely to get any return? I hope that the Government will be grim and determined on this matter. I would
not mind it if they were going to set up an inquiry into this matter, but at all events I hope they do not intend to give any more money to the Forestry Commission.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I am not surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). There are very few Members so capable as he of destructive criticism but it is rarely in a Debate of this kind that we have from him any suggestion of any value either to the House of Commons or to a Committee of the House, or to any Government Department. I am certain that most hon. Members regret that the Government did not see their way to give the grants which were at one time contemplated in connection with afforestation. The situation with regard to the timber supply not only of this country but of the Empire has been deplored on more than one occasion in the House of Commons. About three years ago on a Private Members' Motion moved from the Conservative Benches, attention was drawn to the serious shortage of timber in the Empire, and the importance of doing something to develop the resources of this country and of the Empire in that respect. That Motion received support from all parts of the House. I believe that the situation to-day does not show any improvement. I hesitate to express any opinion with regard to this matter because I have no technical knowledge, but from all the authorities that I have been able to consult I gather that within a comparatively short time we shall have to face the possibility of a serious timber famine. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) expressed a conviction which most of us share that it will not be possible in future to get the private individual to deal with this matter, as was done in the past. Attention is drawn to this aspect of the question in the 12th Annual Report of the Commission. On page 7 of the report the Commissioners state:
In the long run, therefore, the State might have to relieve the private owner of his responsibility in maintaining the woodlands of Great Britain and to take such work in hand before the woodland condition have been dissipated, thus avoiding irreparable devastation. It would be in the national interest for the Commissioners to take over woodland areas on fair terms in
cases where, after every possible encouragement and State co-operation had been offered, the owner was unable to replant.
That is from the report of the Commissioners after, I suppose, the economy policy of the Government in the autumn of 1931 had been embarked upon, and I should like to know whether any steps have been taken by the Commissioners on the lines suggested in this report. There is no necessity for me to emphasise the importance of this matter. In the Debate which took place in this House about three years ago frequent references were made, from both sides of the House, to the importance of the matter. A statement was made by one hon. Member to the effect that in 1909 it was stated by a Parliamentary Committee that there were 9,000,000 acres suitable for afforestation. If that estimate be regarded as rather large, I think, without any exaggeration. 4,000,000 acres might be given as a more reliable figure.
One knows, if one compares the situation in this country with that in some of the Continental countries, that we are very far behindhand. There is only a little over 4 per cent. of our land in this country afforested, whereas you have over 18 per cent. in France and 23 per cent. in Germany. We depend to a very large extent upon imported timber. I do not know whether any recent figures are available, but I believe that immediately before the War this country had to rely on getting 97 per cent. of its timber supplies from abroad.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: That was the percentage of soft wood, not of all timber.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Yes. Here is a Government pledged to do what it can to develop our own national resources, and here is an opportunity which has been missed. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, if he were not speaking in his dual capacity of a Member of the Opposition and of the Forestry Commission, would have given us a very different type of speech. Had he been speaking merely as a Member of the Opposition, he would have spoken, as he usually does, in no very moderate terms, and demanded that the Government should have done something to restore the programme of afforestation
which was contemplated before 1931. I trust that something will be done at no distant date in that direction.
I rise, however, in order to deal with the situation so far as my own constituency is concerned, because my county in North Wales is peculiarly adapted for A programme of afforestation. Two years ago I got into touch with the Commissioners, and I saw the Assistant Commissioner, who has now, unfortunately, passed away, with regard to the desirability of making inquiries as to what could be done. There is 'a large area of land there which is not very much good for ordinary agricultural work, but which could be utilised for afforestation and which undoubtedly at one time was afforested. As a result of my visit to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Assistant Commissioner, Arrangements were made for one of the officials of the Ministry to visit the county. One of their most capable officials came down, and I spent a very long day with him, travelling through various parts of the county. He inspected areas where the consensus of opinion was that something might be done in the direction of planting trees, and I do not think I giving away any confidence when I say that, without expressing himself definitely, he thought there was a. good deal of the land which might suitably be developed for afforestation. He went further, and at his private request I got into touch with a number of owners of land to see whether they would be disposed to negotiate for the letting or sale of land to the Commissioners. I found that there was a readiness to negotiate, but so far I have failed to find that anything whatever has been done in the direction of acquiring land for the purpose of afforestation.
The hon. Member for Torquay qualified his remarks in one respect. He said that although generally he disapproved of the policy of the Commissioners, there was one case in which he was prepared to approve of it, and that was in areas, such as coal mining areas, where there was a great amount of unemployment and where much of this labour might be utilised for the purpose of tree planting. I am certain that if the hon. Member will come to my county he will see that there, at any rate, are the very circumstances which he contemplated when he was making that point to the Committee, and
I presume, therefore, that I can secure his support in urging upon the Government and the Commission to reconsider the question of acquiring land in this part of North Wales. I trust that the restrictions upon the activities of the Forestry Commission are not going to last much longer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower has already informed the Committee that here we have at any rate a national expenditure which, though perhaps not in the very near future, is bound in the remote future to yield a very good return. To take it also from the human point of view, it is obvious that if you begin to develop afforestation and settle upon the land a large number of families, as time goes on they may make use of the land for ordinary agricultural purposes, and you are by that means not only providing for the future of this country in the way of timber, but you are also enabling a fairly large number of people to settle down upon the land. I hope there may be some indication from the Government that the position, so far as the county which I represent is concerned, will be reconsidered with a view to something being done there at the earliest possible date.

4.40 p.m.

Dr. WORTHINGTON: I very seldom address the House, and I hope the Committee will bear with me for a few moments this afternoon. I find myself very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), though I do not ask for a reduction of the Vote, as I should certainly like to see a larger sum provided. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) are, I believe, considered very good landlords in their own country, and I believe I shall be voicing the opinions of the Committee when I say that the hon. Member for Gower is always a champion for people less fortunately situated than himself and is very sincere at that. I rise to ask whether these hon. Members cannot introduce some of that virtue which they undoubtedly possess into their capacities as Commissioners. From time to time I have sought to help some of my constituents in the Forest of Dean and have done so with more or less success, but
sometimes I have very signally failed. I have been surprised and pained at the remorselessness of the machine which those hon. and benevolent Members represent in this House, and I would like to give a few examples and thus incline Members of the Committee to support me in expressing a wish that there may be some little change of heart on the part of the Commissioners.
I would like first to draw attention to one instance into which I think I can hope with confidence to persuade those hon. Members to look. I refer to the piece of ground acquired for a children's playground at St. John's, Cinderford. I saw it yesterday, and it is of very little value indeed. It was considered by the Assistant Commissioner—and I wish to make no attack on him, because I believe he is carrying out the policy of his board very efficiently—in the light of a building site, and I think it could possibly be considered as such only by an official of the Forestry Commission. That land has been subsequently purchased, and it has been put into condition and made a fairly good playground for the children, by voluntary labour. My contention is that the land should not have been sold, as it was, at £70 or thereabouts, but that it should have been given for the purpose. I know that I shall meet with an objection to the giving of this land, but, after all, that is what any reasonable landlord would do, and it is what the Commissioners should do if it is in any way within their power.
There is another case, that of a piece of ground which is required for an extension of a burial ground at St. John's, Cinderford. Again, I saw that land. It is fit for no other purpose, and the price is £120 an acre. It seems it is as expensive to die as to live under the Forestry Commission. There is a further case to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. A land drainage scheme was required near Cinderford. An attempt was made to get the Forestry Commission to do certain work, but it was held up owing to the exacting requirements of the Commission. A private owner of land would have been compelled to carry out the work. Another case was brought to my notice in a letter which I received from a Mr. Joe Harris, who is living in a place called Pokes Hill, which is a curious backwater such as one finds in the Forest of Dean. Years
ago certain poor people squatted there and the access to the land is so bad that in the winter the people have to crawl on their hands and knees to get to their homes. Mr. Harris writes to me to say that many large holes have been formed by a watercourse destroying the path and that it is dangerous to the children to go down there. I saw that place also yesterday. There are 25 persons in the district and they are all very poor. I should think that to repair that path and to make it serviceable would cost a very few pounds. I am told by the Forestry Commission, however, that because the land was squatted on and because a very low price was paid for it it is not considered advisable to spend any money on the repair of the path.
I do not wish to bring any more instances before the Committee, but I have many others which I could bring forward. The price for land which is asked for by the Forestry Commission is very often high not because of the work of the Commission, but because of what has been done by the rural district council. That high price makes housing problems more difficult in a district which is very distressed, and where, as the hon. Member for Gower knows, the people are exceedingly poor. I beg the Commissioners seriously to consider their policy and no longer to hide behind a stonyhearted Treasury, but to adopt a more generous policy in future. If they will do that, they will increase their own prestige, they will certainly make the Government more popular, and, far more, they will remove a sense of grievance from poor people some of whom think that they have no one to look after their rights.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I rise to support the Amendment. I should like to make clear, however, how much many of us appreciate the past work of the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) on the Commission which has been dealing with afforestation ever since the report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall saw the light of day in 1916. We find in that report the reasons why the Commission was set up in 1919 to deal with this important matter, and in order to get a true per-
spective of the position we must go back to that report. I cannot understand the statement made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) if he views the situation that now confronts the Commission and the country from the point of view of the future of industry so far as the supply of timber is concerned. We must not forget that this is the greatest timber-importing country in the world, and we have grave recollections of our tremendous difficulty in furnishing our industries, and particularly the collieries, with timber during the War. During that time many of our forests were stripped nearly naked in an endeavour to provide the essential timber for our various industries. If we had allowed the position after that to remain in the hands of the hon. Member for Torquay, we should have been in a worse position to-day than we are.
The Forestry Commission have done a lot of good work since they took charge of the position in 1919. What was the object they set out to achieve4 It was the maintenance of the existing woodland area, 3,000,000 acres, in a state of productivity; the afforestation with conifers of 1,750,000 acres at the rate of 1,180,000 acres in the first 40 years, including 150,000 acres in the first decade; and the establishment of a Forestry Fund with financial provision for the first decade, 1919 to 1929, of £3,500,000 plus working receipts. There was an interference with that programme by the Geddes Committee, and the Commission had to deplete its programme and its work. This was at a time when we were seriously concerned, not only with afforestation, but with finding work for the vast number of the unemployed. In the northern counties of the country there is a great amount of room yet for afforestation. The hon. Members who represent the Commission may have to face a little criticism similar to that made by the hon. Member for Torquay with regard to the suitability of the land that they have purchased, but their programme has been so interfered with that they have not been able to go forward with a planned idea of afforestation and to buy land in large quantities that were suitable; but they have been obliged to buy bits of land here and there as they came into the market and to carry on their programme as economically as they could.
After the interference of the Geddes Committee had reduced the Commission's activities, there came the further interference caused by the economies which the present Government are endeavouring to exercise. The present provision of £450,000 is inadequate to enable the Forestry Commissioners to go forward with a, full-fledged programme which will meet our shortage of timber and employ the number of men that we should like to see on this type of work. We must not forget that the Commission, in setting men on to the work of afforestation, have the duty of housing them on small-holdings where the men can cultivate for themselves a fair amount of food, and keep poultry and, in some cases, pigs and cattle in their spare time. What has been the result of the Commission's work for 1919 to 1931? We are not altogether satisfied with the number of holdings provided. They number only 1,140. The average cost of establishing them has been £537 per holding. That amount finds a man employment, puts him on a smallholding, and assures him work in afforestation near his home. That work ought to be intensified, and we claim that the Government's policy in providing such a small sum of money for the Commission will not allow it to develop its work in some parts of the country where it is essential that men should be taken from the list of unemployed and found what is suitable, healthy and important work.
I do not think any hon. Member would venture to complain of the cost of the holdings. I think that the Commissioners in this respect. have done fairly well. The only thing about which we complain is that the money which Parliament has provided has not been sufficient. With the Vote this year they will not be able to go on even at the existing rate of progress, and the programme which was promised in 1921 will fall far short in the number of men employed and in the reafforestation that was contemplated. The Commissioners cannot possibly be blamed for it. Only the Treasury and Parliament can be blamed for not providing the necessary funds. In September, 1931, there were 1,042 forest workers resident in the homes. That means that we have employed only 1,042 men on this work since 1921, and yet we have more
unemployed now. We consider that this is a direction in which the Treasury might have encouraged the Forestry Commission to develop. We feel the importance of this matter very deeply, and it is not because we are dissatisfied with the activity of the Commission, but because we are dissatisfied with the financial provision in the Estimates, that we are moving the reduction of this Vote.
We trust that the Treasury will take note of this objection, because we feel certain that there is a large amount of work to be done—useful work of national importance which will give employment to a large number of men, particularly in the northern counties. One would imagine that after the discussions on unemployment that we have had in the House, the Government would have tried to encourage the Commission to develop a long-term plan. I support the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, who has had experience on the Commission and knows the usefulness of the work and the promise it opens out of employment in an industry which the nation certainly requires. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to do his best to get this Estimate increased and to allow the Commission to develop this most useful work, which is of an economical nature, and to bring back into employment hundreds of our men who would gladly take up this occupation, which is healthy and which offers them prospects for the future.

5.0 p.m.

Earl of DALKEITH: I am sure that all engaged in forestry are grateful to those who arranged for this Debate to-day, because it is rarely that we have the opportunity of discussing the important industry of forestry, and it gives us a chance of emphasising the great difficulties under which it has been carried on and the magnificent opportunities which exist for its expansion if rather more sympathy be shown towards it. I agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) that it is disappointing that the programme of the Forestry Commission has had to be curtailed for reasons of economy. A steady, continuous programme is essential, because one has to plant some time ahead if the work is to be carried out successfully. I believe a previous Socialist Government
increased the amount to be spent rather too suddenly, with the result that the operations of the Commission were thrown out, and it may be that it was for that reason that one or two mistakes occurred in planting areas such as have been referred to by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It is not at all easy at short notice to increase staff or to find the necessary young trees for planting, and difficulties were perhaps created when this extra grant was made. I feel the time has now come when we can steadily and continuously expand the programme of the Commission. Very few of those engaged in forestry would agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay. Among my friends in Scotland the feeling is that the Commission have made wonderful progress. They have excellent and enthusiastic officers, and we feel confident that if Parliament will increase the programme gradually they will take every advantage of the opportunities presented.
I have been asked to bring forward one or two points which directly concern the Forestry Commission. One is that the Commission should be enabled to acquire growing woods as well as lands for planting. I rather think this is the case, but it is not widely known. Some timber merchants and landowners possess growing woodlands which are not mature for marketing but which they cannot afford to keep any longer, and unless they can be taken over they may be cut down prematurely. Another point concerns marketing. I do not suppose that, so far, the Commission have to worry so much about trying to sell their timber as have private landowners, but there is some anxiety among timber merchants on the score that the Commission are not co-operating, or are not likely to co-operate, with the timber trade as fully as they might do when selling their trees. If they are able to co-operate successfully, the relations between the timber trade and the Commission are likely to be very good.
As an enthusiastic grower of timber I would like to take the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Government to one or two points and making one or two suggestions. The Opposition believe principally in State forestry, but I hope it is agreed that there is room for private forestry as well. Certainly there is ample need for both. The State, through
the Forestry Commission, are now the largest landowners, and I hope the Opposition are satisfied that in this respect they have achieved one of their purposes. Private landowners, especially those with the largest areas, have a great responsibility in the matter of afforestation. They can do a very great deal in a time of depression such as this to help employment if conditions make it possible for them to sell their timber and to replant and to plant new areas. I would appeal not only to the Government but to all sections in Parliament to take a sympathetic attitude towards private forestry and forestry under the Commission. We could have a wonderful combination between the Forestry Commission and the private growers. The Commission have become a strong body, and they are able to promote forestry and to advise the Government on all the possibilities of the situation, and of how to take advantage of every opportunity that arises. I understand that they are really the only advisers the Government have on this subject, and if that be so they can do much to help, and all interested in forestry look to them more and more to help the industry.
I do not think enough attention has been paid in this House, or outside, to the very great disadvantages under, which British forestry is trying to carry on. One often hears the opinion expressed that we produce only such a very small proportion of the timber requirements of the country that it really is not worth while bothering much about British forestry. I think that is an unfortunate attitude to take. There is actually growing in this country, and ready to be cut, a really substantial quantity of timber. In Scotland, which I know more about, there are very large quantities of timber, mainly soft woods and pit-wood timber, which ought to be cut and which are available for consumers in this country. If conditions could be improved so that home-grown timber could compete with foreign there would be a much larger sale, and people might then say that the industry was one worth supporting; but I urge the Government to realise that there are opportunities, even under the existing difficulties, of extending forestry operations here. It is well worth while to help all those who are anxious to grow timber.
The two main difficulties against which the private grower is contending are foreign competition and high transport costs. The industry is very little assisted by protective tariffs such as have been brought in to help so many other industries, and, in addition, the trade agreements which are being made are, in the opinion of those in the industry, likely to be of disadvantage to the home-grown timber trade. in most countries it is the custom to use up the home-grown timber before they will allow any foreign timber to be imported, and though that might not be possible in this country I think we might see what could be done in that direction. Recently there has been an embargo upon the admission to this country of timber grown in Russia. That embargo has not lasted very long, but the results so far go to show that this country could get on quite well without a very large proportion of the Russian timber which has been coming here in the last few years. It does seem worth consideration whether, in any new trade agreement, the allowance of Russian timber could not be considerably reduced, and only those types of timber and those quantities allowed in which are really necessary. The experience of timber traders in this country shows that, without a very large amount of Russian timber, British timber, Canadian timber and timber from the Scandinavian countries with which we have made trade agreements, can very soon replace a very large proportion at any gap that would be created.
Scotland's problem is mainly concerned with softwoods and pit-wood timber, and the very high railway costs, which naturally put growers at a great disadvantage in a country where the distances which the timber has to be hauled are so great. There are large areas in the North of Scotland from which timber cannot be transported at a price which enables it to compete with foreign supplies to the pits and other consumers. If we are unable to secure assistance against foreign competition, surely that is all the more reason why the Government should urge the railway companies to reduce their quotations. It is unfortunate, too, that the new taxation on motor vehicles should come in just at a time when the situation in the home timber industry is so critical. Only an improvement in the price of timber and in trade generally,
could offset the serious disadvantages of the additional taxation, which will fall heavily on small timber merchants, who are already struggling, and who, unless they are able to employ their transport vehicles full time, will be obliged to offer even lower prices to growers of timber. Whereas no import duties were allowed by the Government on foreign pit wood, that being a raw material for the mines, we do not hesitate to put a fresh burden on home-grown pit wood by this increased taxation on the motor vehicles used to carry the timber from where it is grown to the place of consumption. In addition, the excessive railway costs put a heavy burden upon home-grown timber. I suggest that the Government and the Forestry Commission should do all they can tactfully to urge the railways to meet the demands of growers and timber merchants.
There is one matter in connection with pit wood under which the home growers suffer great disadvantage. Since the Derating Act the rebate of 25 per cent. for pit wood carried by the railways is all taken by the mine owners and none of it goes to the growers or the trade in Scotland. If that is the intention of the Act, and it has to be carried out, it is only fair that the mine owners should do all they can to meet the home timber trade and make some allowance for this rebate, which goes to them, and which puts the home grower at a disadvantage by comparison with the foreigner.
I urge that steps should be taken to encourage greater co-operation between the growers of timber and the timber merchants and consumers. I find, as a result of recent experience, especially among mineowners and other consumers, that they are all willing to take British-grown timber in preference to foreign-grown, in order to help the "Buy British" spirit and the balance of trade, if they can do so; but in most cases we come back to the same difficulty of transport costs. There has, until recently, been a definite suspicion among those working in the mines that British timber was not strong and sound for pit-props and other purposes as foreign timber, but I am glad to find that in Scotland, Durham and Northumberland, where we have been sending pit-wood for some months, and have taken great trouble to ensure that the wood was properly prepared and seasoned, there have been
no complaints and, as a result of experience, that satisfaction has been expressed with the quality of the home material.
I understand, as a result of experiments at Princes Risborough, that, provided proper seasoning arrangements are made, home-grown timber is, beyond any doubt, just as good as the foreign. I hope, in those circumstances, that it may be possible for the mineowners in this country in the coming years to consume larger quantities of home-grown timber than has been the case up to the present. It is extremely difficult, where distances are so great, to arrange this, and any assistance that the Forestry Commission can give in the utilisation of our timber will be welcome. Growers of timber should express their appreciation to the Forestry Commission for the steps they have been taking during the last few months to try to improve the utilisation of home-grown timber as against foreign timber. It may be that our want of organisation in the past has been partly responsible for the difficulty of getting a market for home-grown timber. It will be agreed that the selling of home-grown timber is most difficult to organise. It should give confidence to consumers to know that considerable progress has been made in the last few months towards better organisation.
We may require in this country some strong body, such as some council of forestry, which will put forward the case for the industry, and which will obtain fair play for the home-grown product. I would ask the Government—this is the first opportunity that we have had for many years to do so—to take a more sympathetic interest in forestry. Members of recent Governments have, I suppose, been far too busy to take an active, personal interest in one of the branches of agriculture, but it is in these auxiliary branches of agriculture that attention is well rewarded, and that healthy employment can be very greatly increased, at little cost to the country. Very much more can be done if conditions can be made a little better. There are many individuals who would take immense trouble in their own areas in order to increase their private afforestation And greatly to increase the number employed.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D.
Grenfell) has moved a reduction in this Vote for the purpose of having it increased. Although I shall be obliged to vote against his Motion for the reduction, I am entirely in sympathy with his object. in moving it. I should place the first emphasis, and so, I think, would he, not so much upon the amount of the grant as upon its permanence and its stability. The industry of forestry is essentially a long-term business. It takes a rotation of 80 years to run a softwood forest, and even to prepare for one year's planting needs five years of preliminary work. You have to obtain the seeds and in the nursery you have to wait for five years before the trees are large enough to plant. We cannot expect the Forestry Commission to carry out the work which we have imposed upon them if their annual grants and their decennial programmes are to be continually chopped and changed by the caprice of successive Parliaments. That is what has happened on five occasions in 14 years, during the very short life of the Forestry Commission.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he introduced this Estate, said, with an irony of which I am sure he was quite unconscious, that in 1931 the Commission had been provided with a Vote for the next five years of £450,000, in order that they might know where they were and be, certain of their future. What has happened since the Commission was established I It was provided in 1919 with a definite 10 years' programme. Then, in 1922, the Geddes Axe, which might surely have spared the Forestry Commission, considering the number of accretions that it left untouched, cut down and entirely upset their programme, in a way which was highly inconvenient and, in the long run, not at all economical. In 1924, the programme of the Forestry Commission was slightly increased; in 1927 it was again cut down. Then, in 1929, when the Labour Government took office, they set up, with the most laudable intentions, a Ministry of Employment, under the sanguine control of the Dominion Secretary. That Ministry of Employment invited the Forestry Commission to submit the largest programme they possibly could. The Ministry asked them how many men they could employ and how much money they could get rid of. I do not agree with my Noble Friend the
Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith) when he said that on that occasion the programme of the Commission was extended to an unwise or excessive extent.

Earl of DALKEITH: I said that it was sudden.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: Not even to a sudden extent. The Forestry Commission might have put forward an extravagant programme, but they replied, as I think wisely and prudently, by making very modest proposals. They limited their programme to what they were confident they could carry out with the maximum of economy and efficiency. Their grant was to be very gradually increased to £1,000,000 a year, and their annual planting was to be increased very gradually, year by year, until it reached 44,000 acres in 1938.

Earl of DALKEITH: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood me if he thinks that I disagree with that.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: My noble Friend said that the extension in that year was rather too sudden and excessive. It is to the credit of the Forestry Commission that, when asked to produce a very much larger programme, they were careful to make their demands as gradual and modest as they could. The hon. Member for Gower has already described the details of that programme as a result of which 44,000 acres were to be reached by 1938, and he also gave the figures of employment which would have been realised if the grant had not been cut down. In return for the State grant of £1,000,000, 7,000 men would have been employed. The Committee will see at once, from those figures, that our expenditure on the Forestry Commission is in an entirely different category from the expenditure on unemployment relief work, which has rightly been abandoned by the present Government. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last February, the amount expended upon unemployment relief works, in the seven years from 1924 to 1931, amounted to £700,000,000, and the number of men employed was at the rate—I am speaking of direct employment—of about one man to every £1,000 spent. The expenditure of the Forestry Commission gives direct employment to one man to about every £140
spent, a rate of direct employment which will compare very favourably with any other expenditure in this country whether public or private.
In 1931, the May Committee economies were proposed, as a result of which the grant to the Commission was reduced to £450,000. What has been the result of that? A great deal of the money which had begun to be laid out in anticipation of a larger programme has been entirely wasted. The Committee are not allowed—because they are under an obligation not to ruin the British nurseryman—to throw their surplus stocks on to the market. Even if they had been able to do so, it would have been impossible for them to find purchasers for so large a quantity of trees. I have no official figures on the subject, but I am told by those associated with the Forestry Commission that the young trees which have already been destroyed amount in value to £50,000, which means that as many as 50,000,000 good young trees have been burnt—entirely wasted, at a time when there are 3,000,000 men out of work, and when it is imperative in the national interest that we should plant now, in order to provide against that shortage in the world's supply of softwood timber which is expected to begin within the next two generations.
That is a melancholy illustration of what may be the result of a contractionist policy in finance. It is an entirely false economy, which was thoroughly ill-judged and unfortunate. I am conscious that anyone who supports the policy of economy in public finance, but who makes an exception in favour of one particular item, lays himself open to the criticism of being perfectly willing to support economy in principle but of refusing to have it when it comes to the practical application of it. I recognise that I am laying myself open to that criticism, and I do not offer the excuse that the sum involved is an exceedingly small fraction of our national Budget, because I believe that no part of the public expenditure is too small to be carefully scrutinised; hut I do not feel particularly vulnerable. When Parliament has definitely authorised the undertaking of a 10 years' programme; when Parliament has allowed large sums of money to be spent in anticipation of that programme, which will be wasted if it is curtailed;
and when we know that every penny that is spent will bring back full value, not only in employment, and in saving unemployment benefit, but ultimately in revenue to the Exchequer, the wrecking of that programme—for it has been wrecked—is not economy, but waste, and it is a waste which can only be excused by the extreme difficulty which everybody must have had, at a time of national crisis, in distinguishing between true and false economy.
I am not one of those who have been urging the Government in one way or another to reverse the financial policy of 1931, but I think that, when we find one item of expenditure on which we believe economy has been a mistake, and the amount spent is too low, it is all the more necessary that we should say so. Before I leave that point, may I say that I think we ought to pay a tribute to the Forestry Commission themselves for the accommodating way in which they have co-operated with the Treasury, and the success with which they have adapted themselves to their reduced circumstances with the least possible disadvantage to everybody concerned? Two years ago, before the cut was made, the Commission were employing about 2,800 men in the summer and about 3.500 in the winter. Those figures would have been steadily increased until a total of 7,000 was reached, but when the cut was made it was inevitable, not only that the increase should be checked, but that some considerable reduction should take place. As the Committee will see from the Appendix to this Vote, on page 116 of the Estimates, the numbers now employed are about 2,400 in the summer, and 3,100 in the winter—a reduction of about 400 men. But I think that this reduction is very much less than we might have expected in the circumstances. There have been no reductions in wages, and I understand that none of those who have been permanently taken on by the Commission have lost their employment; and I think we may congratulate the Commission upon having rearranged their plans with the minimum of injury to those whom they were already employing.
In deciding upon our policy of afforestation, we have to contend against misrepresentation from two opposite extremes. On the one hand, there is the political agitator, who tells the people that, if only the deer forests are taken
away from the wicked deer stalkers, and lots of trees are planted all over the place, employment will be found for thousands of men who are now out of work. That is an idea which can only lead to disappointment, and it ought to be severely discountenanced. I am extremely glad to have heard this afternoon the exceedingly moderate tone in which the case has been put, as I think without any exaggeration whatever, by the hon. Member for Gower, and also by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price). But we also have to contend, at the opposite extreme, against the blind perversity of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), whose misguided observations have already entertained the Committee, and who believes that the grant should be abolished altogether. I shall not follow him in his peregrinations through the county of Ross, except to say that I hope he was more fortunate in hitting his stag than in his efforts to admire the view.
Of course, if we are to have a national forestry programme, a great many experiments must be made. Some of those experiments will fail, but there have been others which have been successful, particularly in country where there are a great many sand dunes, and in many areas which had hitherto been deemed unplantable owing to peat. Experiments have been successful there with trees which the local cronies of my hon. Friend, who know so much about the local conditions, would probably have said could not be planted at all. Moreover, even if they have been a failure, these experiments have shown us what cannot be planted, not only for the benefit of the Commission themselves, but for private planters who may be very glad to profit by the experience of the Commission. My hon. Friend must remember that, although we are now experiencing a glut in timber production and a slump in timber prices; we are nevertheless within measurable distance of a serious world shortage in the supplies of softwood timbers, which is expected to begin within the next 40 years. The trees which we are planting now will not reach maturity until long after that shortage has begun to be acute.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: My hon. Friend states that there is going to be a shortage of timber. May I ask him
whether there is any more reason to suppose that than there was' in the case of wheat in 1911, when it was prophesied that there would be a world shortage in 1932? The two things appear to me to be precisely similar.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: There is this excellent reason, that, while it takes only 12 months to produce a crop of wheat, it takes 80 years to produce a crop of timber. I have here a paper prepared for the British Empire Forestry Conference of 1928, which anticipates that, although there might not be an actual timber famine within the next 40 years,
the available statistics lead one to believe that the difficulty of obtaining adequate supplies of softwoods 40 years hence will be considerable.
And it concludes by saying:
There appears to be a real danger of a gap of many years intervening between the time of serious shortage and the time when regenerative and planting measures begin to yield results.
It is based on a survey of the existing cubic content of the timber forests of the world, taken together with the rate, which is increasing every year, at which timber is being consumed. We are at this moment the worst wooded country in Europe, with the exception of Portugal. What is going to be the position of this country in 70 or 80 years' time, when the shortage is at its height, and what will be the position of those industries which depend upon a regular supply of timber at a reasonable price, if we are then only able to produce, as we produce now, no more than about 6 per cent. of our own timber consumption? Surely, our responsibility for providing against that emergency is not diminished by its distance. Now is the time, when the amount of idle capital seeking investment at a low rate of interest is unprecedented, and when even the Treasury is beginning to look with more favour upon really productive schemes of public expenditure—now is the time to expand, and not to contract, our afforestation programme. If it had been in order, I would perhaps have argued that we might be justified in meeting this expenditure by borrowing on capital account, but, as we are confined to a discussion on the Vote, I shall content myself with saying that this sum of £450,000 which we are now asked to
provide is nearly all capital expenditure, and it is capital expenditure of a type which will bring in to succeeding generations, both in revenue and in social value, an ample return.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: It is a rare and refreshing pleasure for those of us who sit on this side of the House to find our views expressed so admirably by members of the Labour party. I found myself completely in agreement with the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), and I was particularly interested by the sound constitutional case that he put forward. I notice with much pleasure that he has now become a defender of the landlord system in this country, and puts forward excuses, quite rightly, for those landlords who own forest land but are experiencing great difficulties, and are often finding it impossible properly and adequately to look after their forests. The hon. Member pointed out the shortage of capital and the low prices that are being obtained, and in that way he made an admirable case. I was interested to hear him say, and it is worth while recording it, that the Forestry Commission were excellent employers of labour—which is true—because they were paying a sum of 35s. a week to their men. I think that that is a fair proposition, but I shall look forward with some interest to the next election, to see if the hon. Member and his colleagues are prepared to repeat that statement then.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Member look at the agricultural wages paid in his own constituency?

Mr. STEWART: As it happens, in my constituency there is a minimum, but in very many cases, indeed in the majority of cases, the wage paid is a good deal higher than that minimum. The hon. Member took credit, and rightly, for the stand made by one of his late leaders, Mr. Keir Hardie, in advancing the cause of afforestation. He was entitled to do that, but I am equally entitled to say that, while Mr. Keir Hardie spoke much for afforestation, it remained for a Liberal, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), to be the first to do something for afforestation. If I remember rightly, it was he who
in 1909 introduced certain measures to relieve owners of forests, and in 1916 he appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) to go into the whole problem, while in 1919 he appointed the Forestry Commission itself, which the hon. Member for Gower adorns at the present time.
We have listened to various speeches this afternoon, but I think the Government must be impressed by the fact that all those speeches were unanimous in demanding an expansion of the forestry programme. In all quarters of the Committee the view is taken that this kind of economy is wrong economy from the national point of view, and I hope very much that the strength of that opinion may induce the Government to make some real advance in dealing with this very serious problem.
Hon. Members have urged the need for afforestation, and have recalled the circumstances in which the afforestation programme was prepared. I should like to address myself to the actual results of the work of the Commission. When my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall issued his recommendations they were most seriously considered, and it was the deliberate decision of Parliament that a, programme based upon those recommendations should be carried through. That programme aimed at maintaining the 3,000,000 acres of private forest land of 1914, and at the State itself planting a further 1,750,000 acres in the next 80 years. That is to say, the House of Commons determined upon a forestry programme which would result in 5,000,000 acres of forests within the next 80 years. The reason for that was of the highest importance. It was to make the United Kingdom independent of imported timber for three years in a time of emergency. We experienced a shortage of timber during the War. We had enormous imports, and those responsible for transport were tremendously concerned to see that the imports continued to come in. Mountain sides were laid bare and country roads were rutted with timber carts moving to the railheads. There was a vast depletion of our resources, and we realised in those War years the special danger in which the country was placed through its shortage of timber. It was in these circumstances that we deliberately decided upon this programme.
What has been the result? The 3,000,000 acres that we thought existed in 1914 have been examined, at any rate in Scotland. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us the position in England, but in Scotland more than 50 per cent. of that private forest land is entirely uneconomic and practically useless. If that proportion applies to the whole country, we are short of 1,500,000 acres of our programme. The Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh (Earl of Dalkeith) made a case for the private owners and urged that they, too, should have their opportunity to plant a very reasonable case to make, but do not let us shut our eyes to the fact that these private owners are in such serious difficulties that they are not able to perform their proper function. In the report of the Forestry Commission last year there is a statement issued by the Consultative Committees of Scotland, England and Wales, upon which landowners are very fully represented. They say:
Private forestry is not receiving the same attention as in prewar days, in spite of the spread of technical knowledge and State encouragement.
They go further, these owners of forest land in England, Scotland and Wales, and say:
In the long run, therefore, the State might have to relieve the private owner of his responsibility in maintaining tale woodlands of Great Britain and to take such work in hand before the woodland conditions have been dissipated, thus avoiding irreparable devastation.
That is not my view. It is not even the view of the Forestry Commission, nor even of hon. Members of the Labour party. That is the view of owners of forest land. Therefore, while leaving the opportunity to private owners to develop, let us face the fact that their contributions must necessarily be limited.
Take the second part of the Commission's programme. They set out to plant another 1,750,000 acres. It could not be done at once so they arranged a programme. Altogether about 280,000 acres have been planted, and, if you add to that the additional plantations of private owners, you reach a total of 300,000 acres of additional land. I look back upon the work of the Forestry Commission in the last two years. I remember that they began their second decade with a programme which was to start with 25,000
acres a year, rising to 44,000, and I see now that they are reduced to 20,000. I make a small calculation and I find that at this rate, instead of taking 80 years to give you 5,000,000 acres of forest land, it will take nearly 180 years to have made the country safe for three years in an emergency. I have gone into this rather carefully, and I find that, unless we make a big advance now, we shall be left at the end of 80 years with nearly 2,000,000 acres short of our 5,000,000. Is this Parliament ready to reverse the considered decision of the Parliament of 1910? It may conceive it to be its duty to do so, but I beg the Committee to realise that that is the issue that we are facing to-day. Unless a great advance is made, with a big programme and with assistance from the Exchequer, we shall have failed in our duty not only to our predecessors, but to those who are to follow after and who are to be responsible for the country's welfare.
I had intended to deal with the Scottish case, because there it is an extremely important matter. Considerably over half of the land that has been planted has been planted in Scotland. It, therefore, represents a much greater problem there proportionately, and we are confronted with many difficulties. There are examples of land having been taken there for forestry which one would imagine ought to have been left in its natural condition. In the Highlands particularly there is constant discussion and dispute over the question whether the land is best suited for sheep or for forests. I have the greatest possible admiration and respect for the Commissioner of Forestry in Edinburgh. I know of no man with wider knowledge and deeper understanding of the forestry problem, and I have spent many an informative hour in his company. But there is a deep feeling of dissatisfaction among the Scottish sheep farmers with regard to the operations of the Commission. I am not here to say that the sheep farmers are right in their complaint, but, it is said that the Commission come in and take the low-lying ground and that for every acre that they take there they put three acres on the hill out of employment. They point out cases without number in Perthshire and thereabouts of good sheep land which is now rendered useless and
is put to less profitable employment because it is taken over for afforestation, and they say we are digging into the productivity of the country. On the other hand, it is said that this is poor sheep land and that it is more profitably employed in forestry. Might I suggest to the Forestry Commission that it would be worth while in their own interests if they could have some sort of inquiry into the problem in Scotland, so as to give satisfaction and confidence to the sheep farmers that the best is being done for them and for forestry and for the country as a whole. But while a Committee of that kind will clear up that difficulty, the real trouble is that you do not know exactly what land is available and what is best suited for forestry. We need, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has often urged, a survey of the land of the country, because we are working in the dark. In Scotland it is essential. The Committee has here to consider many serious problems in recent years. Hon. Members have been confronted with issues of grave concern to the nation. But no problem that we have examined for a long time is more important than this, because we are safeguarding here the economic life, aye, and the defence of the country in years to come.

5.57 p.m.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I should like to deal with the question how far private producers of timber can contribute towards the 5,000,000 acres that the Forestry Commission are striving to get. Landowners are in a very difficult position. Death Duties have done more to break up large estates than anything else, and owners hesitate to cut the trees. Large woodland estates have got so small that they are no longer an economic unit. The Forestry Commission is a big unit which can expend its capital in saw mills and other things and keep them busy the whole year round, but with a small woodland unit it is not worth while to put up sawmills. There are only four estates now with more than 5,000 acres of woodland, there are nine between 3,000 and 5,000 acres, and 174 from 1,000 to 3,000 acres. There are a great many smaller estates, like my own, of about 1,000 acres. An estate of 800 acres, which is just big enough to keep two or three men, is not an economic unit.
The whole object of landowners who grow timber in England and Wales is to start some better organisation for the marketing of their timber. We hope, by uniting into economic units, to be able to make our transport charges less, and to use the same sawmills and keep them going all the year round, and also to do what the Agricultural Marketing Act has taught us to do for agriculture, namely, to grade our timber in quantity and quality in order to compete with foreign timber. We know that in our scheme we have the blessing of the Forestry Commissioners; we have their confidence and support. What has struck us forcibly in trying to work out schemes is that they have not the statistics to help us in trying to find out the actual amount of timber in the various counties in England. Information is not available of private owners who may be planting 10, 20 or 30 acres every year, as they are probably not registered by the Forestry Commissioners in regard to the provision of particulars of the timber planted every year. They would find it worth while to obtain a census of the whole of the timber in England and Wales, and in Scotland. We should then know exactly where we stood. The total annual consumption of timber in this country, according to our figures, is estimated to be 1,100 million cubic feet, of which 90 per cent. are softwoods and 10 per cent. hardwoods. Only 3 per cent. of the softwoods and 25 per cent. of the hardwoods consumed are home-grown, so that there is ample scope for the extension of the home-grown timber trade if well organised, and under fair competitive conditions.
We should like an assurance from the Government that if we can organise our private timber industry on those lines they will then consider protecting us against the imports of cheaper foreign timber. The Forestry Commission have to market their timber, and they must be in the same difficulty with regard to the price which they may get for their timber. The private owners are only too anxious to help the Forestry Commission and to fill the gap which the Forestry Commission have not been able to fill owing to financial stringency. We are willing to help with our organised schemes if given an assurance that we shall be able to obtain a proper price for our timber. This organisation is not only
confined to the Central Landowners' Association, but also includes the Royal English Forestry Association, the Chartered Surveyors' Institution and the Land Agents' Society, all of which are in touch with those who grow timber in every part of the country. I feel sure that, although landowners are unable now to grow the amount of timber and to give employment as they used to do, they are fully sensible of the great value to this country of a successful and flourishing forestry industry, not merely from the point of view of employment alone, and will be willing to do all they possibly can to help the Forestry Commission and the country to produce a more adequate amount of timber.

6.5 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I do not want in any way to reply to the Debate, as this will be carried out later by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), but, first of all, to deal with the subject which was rightly touched upon by one or two hon. Members opposite and developed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newbury (Brigadier General Brown), namely, the very good work which can be done in the interests not only of private owners, but really of the whole body politic by the formation of a cooperative organisation of the owners of timber. Such an organisation ought to be capable of working in conjunction with the timber merchants. Very often a timber merchant has a demand for a special parcel of timber, and has to send his representative round the country to find it, whereas if proper surveys were made he would be able simply to write a note to the secretary of the society and say, "Where can I get my parcel, at what price, how quickly cut and where delivered? "It could all be done without the waste of time for which the private owner has now to pay. Similarly, it would be very much easier if that sort of organisation existed to avoid what many people not unnaturally fear, namely, that when the timber of the Forestry Commission comes on to the market in considerable quantities there may be unfair competition between the Commission and private owners. If there were some sort of working arrangement among owners as to the classification and prices of timber, which perhaps, after a time, would be
accepted by the timber merchant, it would be easy to conform to that general standard, whereas if everything were left in a chaotic state there might be the appearance, at any rate, of undercutting in certain cases.
I want to deal with the general question of programme which was raised in very moderate language and in extraordinary good taste by the hon. Member for the Gower Division (Mr. D. Grenfell), who moved the reduction of the Vote. I am, perhaps, to some extent qualified to do that, because I have seen the whole thing. I remember the changes and vicissitudes through which the Commission has had to go. It was very nearly strangled before it came to birth because there was disagreement, as was inevitable, between English and Scottish Members of the Cabinet. It had been our duty to point out that Scotland had been extraordinarily supine in having done nothing which was of any use in regard to timber. The Scottish Board of Agriculture, because we were proposing to take away their responsibility for forestry, and although they have done nothing at it, thought that we were depriving them of an opportunity of continuing to do nothing, which they valued very highly.
Therefore there were disagreements between the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Members of the Government from which we were only saved by the wonderful industry and perseverance of the late Lord Curzon, who was appointed by the Government to go into the matter very fully and consider whether the report, like so many other reports, should be pigeonholed and come to nothing, or whether something should be done and the Forestry Coramission be set up. Without Lord Curzon's work the Commission probably would never have started. We got rather a flying start and seemed to be getting on very well until the Geddes axe came down. The Geddes Committee recommended that we should be abolished altogether. I remember going to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in whose power it then was to say whether that should be done or not, and he said that he had repealed so many Acts which he himself had passed—the Corn Production Act and
other Acts—that he was not going to repeal any more, particularly on the subject which he found so useful in his perorations, and from which he hoped for so much in the way of development in the county in Wales which he has so near to his heart. So we survived. It was owing simply to the action of the Prime Minister at that time. If the country had followed the Geddes Report, we should have been killed.
We gradually recovered. We had a very severe cut in a superior staff which did us harm and prevented the supervision which might have avoided some of the mistakes which we made in those days. However, we survived and went on, and next came the May Report. I have to do justice to the present Government by saying that here again, like the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, they did not accept the Report which was put before them. The Report wanted to reduce us merely to the position of caretakers who would not be allowed to plant a single extra acre, but it was turned down. We owe a good deal to the Lord President of the Council and to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for their intervention, and for putting a different aspect of the matter before the Government and getting a decision. At any rate, we were saved from simply being policemen over what we had done, and we were given, after a good deal of negotiation, the present programme of 20,000 acres of planting over the next few years. Credit is due to the Government that, at a time when very serious measures of national economy were called for, they allowed the work to continue at the present rate as shown by the Estimate which is before us to-day. Though I accept the reasonableness of my hon. Friend and fellow-Commissioner the hon. Member for Gower in the action which he has taken—I do not in the least think that it was unfair or unreasonable to act to-day in a dual capacity—from my point of view I am bound to hold that a bargain is a bargain. We have made an arrangement with the Government to have a planting programme of 20,000 for the next three or four years, and I must be content with that. We can do good work in consolidating and reviewing, and not going ahead too fast for, at any rate, a few years.
The question is, what ought to happen after that time? Let us examine the figures. We have 20,000 acres of extra planting a year. Under a proposal made to Lord Snowden, we were to go to more than double that number, and under the proposals of my Committee we were to have reached 33,000 acres a year, and to have stayed pretty steady from the 10th to the 30th year on that basis. If we go on the total of 20,000 instead of 33,000 acres, that alone will cause a shortage of 400,000 acres in 40 years. That is a, very serious matter. Its seriousness is accentuated by two changes which were not known to my committee at the time we did our work, namely, first that the position of the woodlands in this country was found by our census to be very much worse than anybody had anticipated at the time we considered and reported; and, secondly, by, what is common knowledge, the inability in the present circumstances of the private owner to do his share of extra afforestation which we anticipated he would be Able to do with the help of Government grants at the time we made our report. Therefore, if it was right to say that 33,000 acres a year was the planting that we considered best at the time that we fixed that figure, the figure ought now to be put higher because of those two elements.
What do I consider to be the reasonable definite action to be taken by the Government, having regard to the present figure? We should be told as soon as possible that when the period of years covered by the present arrangement had been reached we shall be allowed to go forward, not at the pace set by the House of Commons, but at the pace best suited to the methods of gradual advance, consistent with real economy, and by that means to expand from the 20,000 to something like the figure of my old survey, 30,000 to 33,000 a year, without any attempt to rush it because of any policy of national employment or because of any special stringency of employment, or anything of that kind. You cannot use forestry like any other system for putting people into and taking them out of work. To quote one of the picturesque sentences of my report, it is just as bad for the programme of the Forestry Commission to be pulled up every few years as it would be for the trees which they plant to be pulled up to see what their roots
are like every few years. You must give us a very considerable amount of stability. We must know for a considerable number of years in advance where we are going to be if we are to do the work with the greatest possible degree of efficiency and economy. It is a disaster, as has been pointed out, when we have to burn 20,000,000 trees, and it is equally disastrous if we have suddenly to increase our work, to do it in a hurry and to plant unsuitable land, which we should have known more about if we had been able to go a bit slower.
I am certain that this is work which settles people on the land permanently and cheaply compared with any other method which has been actually worked out in practice, and it ought to be gradually expanded. Some hon. Members may disagree that it is the right course for us to regard the bargain made with the Government as one which the Forestry Commission should adhere to. I think the Government would be well advised if two or three years before the end of the period during which the bargain exists they were to say:" The period of special stringency imposed is drawing to a close. Will you prepare, by surveying the land, by getting options on seed supplies and so on, for a steady and gradual expansion in a few years time?" I should like to say how pleased and impressed I have been with the Debate and how very pleasant it is to find that in doing a thing which has been new to Government Departments in this country there has been, on the whole, a good opinion created with regard to what we have succeeded in doing.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: In our view the agreement that was made between the Treasury and the Commissioners as to the reduction of their programme is not something that cannot be altered. The original programme was changed, and the reduced programme can be altered whenever the Government make up their mind to do so, and the evidence we have had this afternoon seems to me to demonstrate that it ought to be changed now, and that there is every reason why it should be so changed. There is money available. At Question Time to-day we had a series of questions about the danger of investing money abroad. The Treasury might welcome money for invest-
ment in this way. Everyone has proved in the Debate that this is an excellent investment, that it is the cheapest method of dealing with unemployment by putting people to work, that it is just the sort of thing the Government are waiting for, and that it, is a profitable method of employing what is usually described as unskilled labour.
I am at a loss to understand anyone who can give any solid reason why we should not go back to the Labour Government's proposition, the best proposal yet made for dealing with this question. I understand the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. H. Stewart) said that we on these benches are good talkers, but that we never do anything. He forgets that we were turned out of office because we tried to do something. We spent too much money. We did everything that people are now urging the present Government to do. The chickens have come home to roost. It has been discovered that the policy of cutting down wise and useful expenditure is nonsensical. In listening to the hon. Member's speech it seemed to me that the purpose of it was to support more expenditure rather than any curtailment of it. I hope, therefore, that he will go into the Lobby with us and vote for the reduction as a means of getting more money spent.
When I occupied the same seat that is now occupied by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), I remember making a speech about agriculture and afforestation, although I knew little or nothing about the subjects, and pointing out how essential it was to develop the land of this country, and that afforestation was one of the things crying aloud for Government action. That was a long while ago, and everything that has happened since, especially since the War, has made that suggestion even more important. There is one question which I should like to ask very seriously. I have had to do with hardwood for furniture—walnut, sycamore, chestnut and oak. Some friends of mine use a very considerable quantity of English oak. I should think that the supply of these hardwoods must be getting down, and I should like to know what we are doing in that respect. For some purposes English oak beats any other oak for furniture and purposes connected therewith. As regards
walnut, I speak of what I know when I say that English walnut, when it reaches a proper size, is in some respects much better than the French walnut that we import in very large quantities. Chestnut and sycamore are also woods that are used considerably. I have often wondered —perhaps I ought to have inquired earlier —whether in our planting efforts are made to replace the very large numbers of these trees that come down for various reasons, some being cut down in order to raise money. It was either a Canadian or an American timber-grower who said that whenever one tree was cut down another ought to be planted in its place. That is a counsel of perfection in our country, but if we are to deal with this question properly, we ought to have in view all kinds of timber, and try to replace it and get more where possible.
I may be stamped as quite ignorant in saying what I am going to say, but I am not sure that the research students in regard to afforestation and the growing of trees generally are all quite correct in their opinions. I remember that, when we took some men to Suffolk we were told that to plant certain trees there was sheer lunacy. The committee of which I was chairman, and who knew much more about the subject than I did, carried through their determination and planted trees there although every expert told us it was sheer midsummer madness. Anyone who goes to see those plantations now will see that they produce some of the best fruit in the country. Therefore, when we hear that certain areas are unsuitable for the planting of certain trees, I am not sure that the experts are quite right about it. I listened to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and, of course, I am bound to give way to his opinion, because he lives in the districts about which he spoke, but I could not help wondering whether he was right in his analysis of things, and whether by different methods the plantations about which he complained might not be more successful.
It would be out of order to argue whether the economies were or were not necessary two years ago, but most people have come to the conclusion that we ought at this time to do everything we can to develop expenditure in our own country. I read a speech that was made, I think on Saturday, by a big commercial man, a, friend of mine, with whom I had furious
arguments about the spending of money just before and during the crisis. I was astonished to find that he now takes the view that it is rubbish to keep on with the economy ramp. He asked why we did not spend more money in developing our own country. It is only a small thing for which we are asking this afternoon. Opinion has swung round in favour of a development policy, and that opinion is held not merely by people like myself, but by men who are engaged in finance and industry. There is a chance, on this relatively small Vote, for the Committee to say to tell the Government to go forward with this very useful work, and restore the grant to the amount proposed before the May Committee's Report.
I have had as much experience as any Member of the Committee of men being taken from the East End of London and other parts and put to work on the land at different kinds of jobs, planting trees and fruit bushes, and I have seen miners from the training centres which have been established, and what has always amazed me has been the adaptability of the socalled unskilled man. If men under conditions which are not good, because it is not nice to be put into a sort of compound, where you have to be in at a certain hour of the night, where your movements are restricted and your food provided in bulk, where there is no chance practically of any wages—if men under these conditions respond and give their best and show how adaptable they are, surely, if we can get more of them on this work of afforestation, as I hope we shall and redevelop the whole of British agriculture, we ought to do it. I hope the Financial Secretary will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this Debate, ask him to read this discussion, reconsider this relatively speaking small sum of money and give the Commissioners the opportunity of carrying through their full programme by restoring to them the grant which was given before the cut. I join with everyone else in congratulating the Commissioners on the manner in which they have dealt with a very difficult situation, and I am sure that they will be with us in asking the Government to reconsider the matter and give them the extra money.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown)
on a most interesting speech, full of practical suggestions. As a member of the timber trade, may I say that there is one other point beside that of the grading of timber which should receive attention, and that is the drying of the timber. As far as the timber trade is concerned, it will be only too ready to give the fullest co-operation. The only other hon. Member who, in my opinion, has made commonsense observations has been the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). This £500,000 that is being spent is the biggest waste of money that is going on at the present time. Let us examine the facts. Take the price of timber to-day, £10 per standard or ls. 3d. per cubic foot. The trees which you are growing will be worth less than nothing at that price. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that there is going to be a timber famine 30, 40, 60 or 80 years ahead. The same thing was said when I first entered the timber trade, and I, for one, do not believe it. The reports which have been prepared in Blue Books have not taken into account the fact that there is in the world many hard woods which can be utilised for much of the work for which soft wood is now used.
This country is not adapted for the growing of soft woods, and the main reason for that is that there are no big rivers which can take the timber, whereas in the United States, in Russia and in Canada, timber can be taken many hundreds of miles down big rivers. In England the cost of transport by rail is far in excess of the value of the timber itself. The hon. Member for Roxburgh (Earl of Dalkeith) has told us about trees in Scotland. To bring trees from the north of Scotland into the industrial areas of the north and midlands would coat about three times the value of the timber. What is the good of growing timber in these circumstances? It is pure waste of money. No one knows the timber lands of Flintshire better than I do. Some of the finest ash and oak in the whole country are grown in North Wales and command profitable prices, but to talk about growing soft woods, as the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) did—where are you going to find a market where the cost of transport does not exceed the value of the timber? The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Worthington)
spoke about the operations in that part of Gloucestershire. Everyone who knows that beautiful county knows that the trees there are not conifer trees; they are all oak. A great mistake in policy has been made by the Forestry Commission. Instead of concentrating on conifer trees, they should have concentrated upon the ash and oak, the natural tree of this country which can be grown at a, profit.
I should like to say a, great deal about the cost of transport. That is the real curse of the timber trade. It is far too high. My own firm is importing timber from the middle of Rumania and it has to come 2,000 miles to Danzig, and I do not know how many thousand miles from Danzig to Liverpool by sea,. The timber is brought for the whole of that distance for less cost than I could take it from Liverpool to Birmingham. It is obvious that the timber rates are the real curse of the trade, and until something is done in that direction it is futile for the Commission to go on as they are. This is a matter, I agree, of the greatest importance but the economic way to do it is by grants-in-aid to owners of existing timber lands to enable them to improve timber in those places where it is now being grown. The commissioners have done their work excellently in the circumstances, but they are starting in the wrong way, and with the wrong woods. It is money thrown into the gutter. You might as well dig a hole and fill it up again. I regret that the Government did not accept the recommendations of the May Report and put this policy into cold storage, and thus do away with this gross waste of public money.

6.41 p.m.

Sir ALAN McLLEAN: I am grateful for the opportunity that has been given this afternoon to discuss this important subject. In my own constituency there is situate the Thetford Chase area, one of the largest planting areas in England. The difficulties of the Forestry Commission, and of private owners of woodlands, have been discussed this afternoon, and, of course, owing to the long-term operation of forestry, one of the main difficulties is in getting a steady, consistent programme, carried out over a. long term of years. I am not going to discuss that problem, but there is one difficulty which
the commission have to face to which reference has not been made up to the moment. On the one hand, it is often said, and has been said this afternoon by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), that the commission are planting on land which is unsuitable for the growing of timber. On the other hand, it is said that the commission are taking land which is too good for afforestation and ought to be used for agricultural purposes. The hon. Member for Torquay, in giving instances of land which was really too poor for timber production, mentioned one or two in Scotland, and then selected my constituency as providing the kind of land which is not good enough for timber growing. He is a false prophet. The land will grow good timber, and I am willing to take him there and show him examples of excellent timber growing in the neighbourhood.
The other difficulty is the suggsetion that the Commission have been using land which is too good, and which ought to be devoted to agricultural purposes. Speaking generally, I believe that the Commissioners are almost bound, for economic reasons, to buy land which is not suitable for agricultural purposes, and I think it is also the fact that in every case of doubt they consult with the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject. But while the whole aspect and character of the country in South-West Norfolk are being changed by this planting programme, it is most important that the Commission should carry with them the local people in these matters and, therefore, if it could be arranged that the Commission, before devoting land of a doubtful character to afforestation purposes, should get into touch with the local authority or the people in the district and explain their programme to them, it would get rid of a good deal of the hard words which are sometimes used about the Commission. At the present time, owing to the depressed condition of agriculture, it might be possible, of course, to buy land at a very low figure and to use it for afforestation purposes, but if that land is likely, in the near future at any rate, to be capable of use for agricultural purposes, I hope and believe that the Commission will not use it for afforestation.
There is one other matter of local importance which is worthy of consideration by the Commission. Where we are taking a large area of land and changing the character of the neighbourhood, if the Forestry Commission would, as far as possible, use all local labour in carrying on their operations, they would do a good deal to soften the blow that some people feel is being dealt at a district. It would be a great mistake to use labour that comes into such districts from the outside, for whatever reason it comes, if local labour is available for the purpose.
I pass from that to another matter that has been mentioned to-day, and that is the difficulties of the private planter. The hon. Member who opened the Debate referred to the woodlands which in many cases are deteriorating because the owner, for one reason or another, is allowing them to deteriorate. Is it not possible for the Forestry Commission, who at present give very valuable assistance in the planting of timber on privately-owned land, to carry their assistance a bit further by giving, possibly, financial assistance, and taking a survey of the woodlands which they think are being neglected? Could they not assist the private landowner to make these woodlands what they ought to be, an asset of real national value. I do not know whether the Forestry Commission can do anything of that kind. I know that they are very good in giving advice, but in some of these cases I think it might be in the national interest for the Commission to take the first step and view the woodlands that are deteriorating, to call the proprietor's attention to them, and to give him advice or possibly assistance.
The hon. Member who opened the Debate asked us to support a reduction of this Vote. I cannot accept the advice. There were many parts of the hon. Member's speech with which I entirely agreed, and no part with which the Committee as a whole more heartily agreed than the tribute he paid to the Forestry Commissioners of the past, and especially to those Commissioners who are no longer with us. I can assure the hon. Member and other Forestry Commissioners who are Members of this House, as well as their colleagues outside the House, that the help which the Commission is giving to the country generally is very greatly appreciated by many.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: I too wish to congratulate the members of the Forestry Commission on the excellent work they are doing in my constituency. I have risen to call attention to one matter which affects all tenants of sheep farms bought by the Commission. In nearly every case in North Wales the farms bought are in the main sheep farms. The tenant going into one of these sheep farms is nearly always prepared to give for the sheep 10s. a head at least more than their market value. The reason for that is, of course, that they are being depastured on the open mountains; they have been born and bred on these open spaces and they, by reason of this, keep to the part of the open sheep walk which belongs to the farm. What do the Commission do? I ought to say that when letting a farm the landlord scarcely ever undertakes to buy the sheep but he binds the tenant to offer these sheep at a certain price, or to arbitrate; he never binds himself to take these sheep over, and for obvious reasons. To the landlord the farm would be of no value whatever without the sheep. If the sitting tenant sold the sheep away that farm would never let at its normal rent. Therefore the landlord is always prepared to take the sheep at a valuation and that valuation is always about 10s. more than the market value of sheep sold in the ordinary way.
But what does the Forestry Commission do? It buys a farm and when the landlord has not undertaken in the agreement to take the sheep at a valuation, the Commission says, "We do not want the sheep." The consequence is that tenants who, in going into the farm, took the sheep at a valuation, lose 10s. a head on them.
My appeal to the Forestry Commissioners is that they should deal with the tenant in exactly the same way as a landlord or incoming tenant would do. Agriculture is in a very sorry plight in my part of the world, and the loss of 10s. a head on sheep is a tremendous loss to a tenant. In buying the farms the Commissioners should remember that they have an obligation to the tenant and should treat him as the tenant has treated a. preceding tenant.
But that is not all. The Commissioners do not always refuse to buy the sheep. When there is an agreement
specifying that the landlord has the option of buying the sheep at a very low figure, the Commissioners buy the sheep. Let me give an instance. A farm was bought by the Commission. Under an agreement the tenant had bought the sheep at 12s. a head, and if he left he had to sell at 12s. a head. The Commission immediately took the sheep over at 12s. a head. They saw that they could sell the sheep to better advantage later. They therefore took possession of the sheep at that low figure. But when it comes to taking them at market value, plus the 10s. a head which they would command if sold by arbitration as stock sheep, invariably do they decline to take them. The Commission should deal with tenants in exactly the same way as an incoming tenant or landlord would do. Surely a Government Department ought to set an example to everyone in the country.

6.53 p.m.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURT-HOPE: I wish to reply to some of the points raised in the Debate and I ask the indulgence of the Committee while I make the attempt, for although I am one of the oldest Members of the House I am completely a "new boy" in the task of attempting to reply to a Debate in Committee of Supply. It has been a very friendly and encouraging Debate, and I would like, if I may without impertinence, to thank those Members from all parts of the House who have spoken to-day. The friendliness of the speeches has been typical of the friendliness with which we carry on our work in the Forestry Commission. I am the third Commissioner to take part in the Debate to-day. My two colleagues and I belong to three different parties, but it would be very difficult for anyone to find out that fact in the work that we do together. I could wish for no two better colleagues than the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Member for Gower suspects me of being a good Socialist as often as I credit him with sound Conservative principles. Whether that be so or not, I do not ask for an answer. In any case we work together in admirable co-operation and friendliness.
In moving a reduction of the Vote the hon. Member for Gower made a speech with almost every word of which I found myself in complete agreement. Let me deal with some of his points. It is not for us Commissioners to question the decision of His Majesty's Government in imposing a drastic reduction of programme upon us. We can only carry out the programme with loyalty and we have attempted to do so. I think we have succeeded in doing so. I may claim for the Commission that when we were asked in the first period, before the new scale came into force, to try to find economies of £150,000, we succeeded in finding economies of approximately £180,000. We were able immediately to cut away a good deal of expenditure which was preparatory to the expanding programme which we had been instructed to draw up. I do not think that that expansion was too rapid. Here I find myself in slight disagreement with my Noble Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith). I hope it may be possible before long for the Government and this House to hold out the prospect to us of getting back to an expanding programme somewhat on those lines. I am referring to that matter now, because I want to remind the Committee, and particularly the Treasury, that it would take a very long time to work up to an expanding programme of any substance. The preparation is slow and the work must be very gradual. If it were desired that we should get back to a substantially larger programme in five years, we should start at once.
The hon. Member for Gower and one or two other speakers have quite rightly laid great stress upon the importance of stability of programme. I agree with that entirely. Nothing could be more wasteful than a sudden drop either from a fixed programme or an expanding programme. It is quite true that the economy which was imposed upon the Commission two years ago involved the destruction of young plants which had cost approximately £50,000 to grow. There were nearly 50,000,000 of them. There was no alternative before the Commission. I mention this because people have said to me, and Members of the House have said to me, "Why did you not give them away?" If we had given away the plants which we had, or
attempted to do so, we should have put the whole of the nursery trade into bankruptcy. We were not justified in doing that. What we did was to arrange with one or two large local authorities that a programme of planting should be undertaken by them—it would not have been undertaken otherwise—and we supplied them with the plants. It would have been improper for us in order to secure the planting of our plants to have thrown the whole nursery trade into insolvency and to have compelled them to destroy their plants.
The hon. Member for Gower and other hon. Members have given many interesting figures on the subject of the employment given the Commission. I am not going over these figures again. I only want to remind the Committee of one point which has not been stressed, and I do not think has been mentioned in the course of this afternoon's discussion. The point is that, while in the early days of a forest, a comparatively small number of men may be employed, that number is continually increasing as the forest gets older. We only feel justified in recommending the setting up of five forest workers' holdings per thousand acres of plantable land. When, however, that thousand acres has grown up, it will employ not five men permanently, plus seasonable employment, but 25 at the least. The Forest of Dean gives permanent employment to one man per 39 acres. This, I think, is a reinforcement of the argument that afforestation is sound for employment. It will go on creating growing employment as the forest approaches maturity.
Several references have been made, not only by the hon. Member for Gower but by other hon. Members, to the fact that in some cases our plantations have not been successful, that we have planted on poor types of land and that we have grown conifers where we might have grown hard woods. The whole underlying idea of our forest policy in this country has been to attempt to make commercial forests where no substantial amount of food is produced. The better land, upon which we could get much better timber, is ruled out, both by the economic factor and the consideration that we must not displace food production to any appreciable extent. That is the reason why a great deal of relatively
poor land has been planted. I may say here that it is astonishing how many units promise to be quite successful.
Let me turn to the second speaker in the Debate, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I wonder whether he intended me, or any other hon. Member of the Committee, to take him seriously? I found it very difficult to do so. He is in a position of splendid isolation so far as his attitude to forestry is concerned. He mentioned one or two specific points which I do not want to ignore. He criticised the Glenshiel plantation, and one or two plantations in other districts. My hon. Friend has dealt with one of the cases he raised. I would like to tell him that there is a good deal of difference of opinion about the success or failure of the Glenshiel plantation. I am not going to accept his condemnation at its face value.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I quite agree that there are differences of opinion, but surely where trees have died wholesale, which they have done in this case, there can be no difference of opinion.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: There may have been some element of failure. I do not deny that, but it is quite impossible for us to experiment, to the extent we have to experiment, without some failures. I am not at all sure Glenshiel is one of them. We have to try a great many experiments, and, as I mid before, it is astonishing how many of them promise to be successful. The results derived from these successful experiments are likely to be very important. For instance, we have found a means of growing trees successfully on types of land which 15 years ago would have been condemned as unproductive of anything of value. That has been well worth doing because it has brought into the range of economic forestry a large area of land. I may give an instance of a great stretch of the Border country—Kïelder Castle, Kershope and New Castleton. There is a very promising forest started there where, as I said, 15 years ago the most optimistic person would have hesitated to embark on anything of the kind.
Another experiment, promising great success, has reference to settling the moving sands at Culbin. It is true that there is French experience, but so far as Great Britain is concerned it is
new, and it promises to be not only successful but of great value to a district threatened by these moving sands. The hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) surprised me by the points he raised. I have always been brought up to look upon him as one of the most rigid of Free Traders. So far as I can gather, he was criticising the Government, and the Forestry Commission, for not being sufficiently drastic in their protection methods, so far as timber is concerned. Before I sit down I shall have something to say about foreign supplies, and perhaps I can do that better than in answer to the hon. Member. He further made complaint that we had not done any planting is his constituency. It is not for lack of trying. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) said, some of the land in Flintshire is very valuable, and is outside our economic range at present. We entered into very considerable negotiations for suitable land, within the range of economic possibility, in Flintshire. In one case we came quite close to the end of the negotiations, but the owner sold it at the last moment to somebody else. In another case, negotiations had to be interrupted when the policy associated with the May Report was brought forward. We are perfectly willing, when the opportunity offers and there is suitable land at a suitable price, to plant in Flintshire as in any other part of Great Britain.
The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Dr. Worthington) raised a number of local points. He wishes us to give, instead of sell, land for children's playgrounds, for the extension of cemeteries, for drainage schemes, and for the making of footpaths to inaccessible houses occupied by squatters, etc. I would be the last to agree with him that the heart of the Treasury is stoney. I do not think it is, but even so, I must remind him that if the Forestry Commission, without the consent of the Treasury, started to give away property of the Crown, for however worthy a purpose, we should hear more of it, not only from the Treasury but from this House. We try in this matter to act as good servants of the Crown, good landlords, good neighbours and good employers. More than that we cannot do. I think, if he considers the matter a little more deeply, that he will feel we
could not have made these gifts that his constituents would have liked. He would not have been so keen about our making gifts to the constituency of some other Member.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price), in an interesting speech, asked for an increase of forest workers' holdings. I wish we could increase the forest workers' holdings, because I believe they are likely to play a very important part in creating a healthy type of peasantry in the forest areas, who will be of value, not only to the Commission, but to the nation at large. When our funds are cut down to the minimum we must, however, not allow ourselves to forget that our main purpose is to create woodlands, and we would not be justified in diverting part of the funds we want so badly for planting, to the creation of holdings we can do without.

Mr. LANSBUR: We must sack the Treasury.

Sir G. COURTHOP: It is a matter for the Treasury rather than for ourselves. We have 1,179 forest workers' holdings and we have 16 more in progress at the present time. Of these 1,179 holdings, 108 are occupied by ex-miners from distressed areas. The average rent of a holding is £14 per annum, and the average area is between 10 and 11 acres. These holders, most of whom, if not all, came to the holdings with very empty pockets, now own livestock which, on a conservative basis, is valued at over £37,000. They are establishing themselves as holders, and as producers of food. We guarantee a minimum of 160 days' paid work to these holders. In the majority of cases they get a good deal more, but that is the guaranteed position, and the scheme is working admirably, The Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith) advocated increased acquisition of growing woods. We have the power to do so, but there, again, cost comes in. We would like to acquire growing woods, but our principal job is to make the money go as far as possible by increasing the acreage of our own forests. If we diverted the money to purchasing growing timber, we would reduce thereby our power to plant new plantations. I agree with him that a great deal more should be done if possible to organise the marketing of timber and to cheapen transport. I think it is
not improper of me to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to this matter, because it is a point which the Treasury ought to consider very carefully in the next two or three years.
The fact that we have a large quantity of thoroughly good, sound pit timber in Scotland which in present circumstances cannot be brought to market because of the cost of transport, makes a study of the subject desirable but, apart from that consideration, we must remember that in a few years' time the annual output will be increasing enormously. When the young plantations reach a certain age large areas will have to be thinned, and if forestry is to be an economic success it is imperative that means should be found of getting these thinnings, the first product of the forests, to market as economically as possible. Experience as well as the scientific tests carried out at Princes Risborough have proved beyond a doubt that our pit timber is as serviceable as the competing foreign pit timber for use in the mines—and for other purposes as well, though I am dealing now more particularly with pit props. If the economic difficulty of transport could be overcome, we could put 1,000,000 tons a year of good pit timber into the mines of Great Britain without any difficulty, and that quantity would increase as the young plantations of the Forestry Commission advanced towards maturity.
The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) in a very delightful and well-informed speech properly laid stress upon the need for permanence in policy. I make no excuse for returning to this subject because it is of the utmost importance, if the maximum of employment with the minimum of expenditure is to be achieved, that we should work on a, regular, organised graduated programme. Any sudden jerks, upwards or downwards, can only be wasteful and may lead to ultimate failure. I do not know whether I can follow the hon. Member into a discussion on the point which he raised regarding capital expenditure, and perhaps I had better leave that question unanswered. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was very anxious to claim credit on behalf of his own party for various matters in connection with
forestry. I will give his party the credit of producing my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, who is the author of the document well-known as the Acland Report upon which our forest policy and the Forestry Commission are based. But I hope he will not ask me to go any further, because, as I have said already, we work together as a happy family, and I do not want to start giving this credit here or that credit there.
The hon. Member went on to talk about sheep stocks. I assure the hon. Member that no land is taken without the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture in England and Wales and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. That is in order to ensure that we do not inadvertently take land contrary to the general policy which is not to interfere with the production of foodstuffs. In the Acland Report there is a paragraph which states that if 2,000,000 acres of land were put under trees the production of meat in this country would be reduced by less than 1 per cent. and as far as I can ascertain there is no case in which there has been anything like substantial interference with food production. The land which has been taken has been land carrying the minimum of livestock. As I am on the question of sheep stocks, I should like to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Haydn Jones), who seemed to suggest that the Commission were not quite playing the game with regard to this question of sheep stocks.
The question of acclimatisation values, to which the hon. Member referred, is a very difficult one, but we avoid taking acclimatised stocks wherever we can. We have had to take them in certain particular instances, and, incidentally, they involved us in a loss of £14,000, but we always arrange, if we can, that acclimatised sheep stock will be disposed of either before we take over the land or in the process of taking over the land, and it very often happens that we are able to arrange with farmers with a big range of land to plant 200 acres or 300 acres of a large farm each year allowing eight years or 10 years before the final transfer, and where that arrangement has been possible it has worked amicably and well. I can assure the hon. Member that, although we try to make good bargains in these cases, it may be found
in some cases that the cost of acclimatised sheep stock makes the whole transaction uneconomic for us, and we have to turn down the scheme, but we have always, as far as I am aware, acted up to the letter and the spirit of the bargains which we have made.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) mentioned one of our great difficulties, namely, that of encouraging private forestry. Estates generally are steadily being reduced in size and private forestry is much easier to encourage on a large estate than on a small estate. There are still many private estates which set a striking example in this respect, but as estates are broken up, it passes beyond the power of the new owners with smaller areas to manage their woodlands under sound forest conditions. I do not think it a remedy to suggest that the Forestry Commission might take over these little woodlands. It would be uneconomic and wasteful to try to manage a number of scattered woodlands and it is better that our efforts should be concentrated for a great many years on the economic handling of large blocks such as we are handling to-day.
The right bon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me a very interesting question, and I should like to thank him both for the kindness with which he put his question and the praise which he gave to the Commissioners. He asked about the hardwoods. I have already explained that the limitation on the cost of land does not make it easy for us to get very much good land but, wherever we can, we maintain and increase plantations of hardwood. I have here a report of last year—just one year's plantings—and I find that in the year ending 30th September, 1932, we planted over 1,000,000 oaks, 855,000 ash, 1,500,000 beech, and 3,000,000 of other varieties. This includes a certain amount of walnut, which we have planted at the request of the War Office as well as for other reasons. The hon. Member for Macclesfield suggested that this country was unsuitable for the growth of soft wood timber. I do not agree, and the experience of the Commission during the
last few years does not bear out that theory.

Mr. REMER: I did not mean to say that the land was unsuitable, but that it was uneconomical from a transport point of view.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I disagree still more with the hon. Member on that point. We are now supplying successfully considerable and increasing quantities of telegraph poles to the Post Office. Everyone knows how exacting are the specifications of the Post Office, and if we can satisfy the Post Office as to telegraph poles hon. Members may rest assured that we are producing very fine stuff. As to the general question, we are at present importing 95 per cent. of our soft wood requirements from foreign countries and 86 per cent. of our hard wood requirements—the soft wood is much greater both in bulk and in proportion—and I would draw attention to two sentences from recent official publications. In 1926, the forestry subcommittee of the Imperial Conference reported that there was every likelihood of a serious shortage of soft woods in less than 30 years. This is the seventh year of those 30 years.

Mr. REMER: The same thing was said before.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: In 1932, the Economic Committee of the League of Nations published a report on the timber problem which stated that the world consumption of soft wood timber was 50 per cent. greater than the annual growth and that, put in other words, meant that the forest resources of the world were being exhausted to the extent of 17,000 million cubit feet a year. That cannot go on long, and we have to face that situation. For those reasons, as well as for all the social reasons involved, I think the forest policy of this country is fully justified, and if this Government or future Governments see their way to say to us: "Let the policy expand," we shall be very glad to expand it.

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Read a Second time, and committed.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Part VII."
We offer no apology for intervening in this Debate, although it may be, on its title, a matter peculiar to the borough of Middlesbrough, because we believe that there are here involved matters of fundamental principle that far transcend the ordinary local aspect of the matter. We believe the questions involved are of such paramount importance that they could only properly be discussed by this House. I would refer hon. Members to what is sought by Part VII of the Bill, which is a Bill of great volume and, no doubt, of some merit. In Part VII there are some Clauses which make a tremendous inroad into all corporation legislation. By Clause 148, the second Clause in Part VII of the Bill, the corporation seeks legislative authority to
establish maintain and carry on a wireless telegraph station or stations for the reception of broadcast matter
and they seek power to
amplify any broadcast matter so received and allow the same to be received by consumers by means of any electric line for the time being belonging to the Corporation.
They also want authority to
publish and advertise programmes of the broadcast matter which it is intended to allow consumers to receive.
They seek power by Clause 149 to
 acquire by agreement or take on lease or with the consent of the Minister to appropriate any lands or buildings 
and to maintain buildings, plant and machinery, and they seek power to
 allow consumers to receive broadcast matter upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon between the Corporation and such consumer.
Finally they seek power to
provide sell let for hire convert repair maintain and remove … loud speakers selectors and other apparatus 
in connection with the reception of broadcast matter. In short, by Part VII of the Bill, the Middlesbrough Corporation seek power from this House to establish and maintain a wireless exchange. It is
said that this is one of the various systems of diffusion which exist all over the country and that the Corporation of Middlesbrough should have power in their corporate capacity to run such an exchange operating for the transmission and reception of broadcast matter. It is well known that there are in existence certain wireless exchanges which have as a business proposition loaned to various people in their area machinery to enable them to receive such broadcast matter as a re-diffusion service may collect and transmit to those to whom they have a contractual duty. When an establishment is allowed to enter into business for the purpose of rediffusing, to those with whom they may have contracts, certain broadcast matter, it is subject to certain limitations which the Postmaster-General in his discretion is authorised to impose as part and parcel of the licence for re-diffusion which he gives. It lies in the hands of the re-diffusion exchange that is then established to alter, to unbalance, to adapt, or to select such matter as that authority thinks fit to be broadcast
I appreciate that it would always be open to the Postmaster-General for the time being, if in his opinion the selection or the adoption of such matter by any re-diffusion service was so deliberately arranged as to become unbalanced, to revoke or withdraw the licence, but, I submit, it is putting the Minister in a difficult position if he is asked to be the judge of whether matter be unbalanced by the process of selection which has been made by the establishment broadcasting the matter which it rediffuses to its subscribers. One could have foreseen that, if a local authority were given power to rediffuse to certain listeners, over the line which the local authority had for electricity, such matter as it selected, it might very well be, according to the fancy or colour of the corporation then in existence, a real inroad upon the deliberately balanced programme of the British Broadcasting Corporation. It was with very good cause, no doubt, that the British Broadcasting Corporation was authorised by this House to exist as a public utility company outside any influence of political colour from whatever source it might emanate, and it seems that any such authority as is sought in this Bill will undermine the very principles which were so well
established when the British Broadcasting Corporation was brought into being.
I would like to make another observation upon what might be the result of any such authority seeking to exploit the position of monopoly which they obtain as a local authority. The policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation, as approved by successive Postmaster Generals, has been not to allow any advertising matter or sale of time from the British broadcasting stations. One knows that it is not difficult to obtain, from a foreign station which is readily receivable in this country, certain time to be used for any purposes that the buyer of that time thinks fit, and in these days, when certain French stations are so easily received in this country, it is very easy for time that has been bought on a French station to be used for the transmission to English hearers of, I will not say offensive matter, but matter which is not permitted over a British broadcasting station. Power would come into the hands of a local authority to obtain from such sources time to be employed in a manner which the local authority thought best, to be used exclusively for those hearers connected through the re-diffusion service.
I would mention some of the matters which could easily operate through an extension of this principle of re-diffusion. There are times when you are dealing with schools or institutions or certain blocks of dwellings when re-diffusion may, from its very nature, be a very useful and practical extension of the principle of wireless. It may be that from its cost it gives better opportunities, to those who have to consider every copper that is spent, to get programmes which otherwise they would be denied through lack of having a machine capable of receiving a Continental station, but I think the proposition is as yet so novel that each instance has to be considered with very great care, and the possibilities of transmitting must be considered from every angle before any extension is given of the nature indicated in this Bill. The British Broadcasting Corporation has always provided entertainment, recreational and educational, and amusement of a very carefully balanced nature, well planned and
thought out, so that no particular line is embarked upon exclusively, and a balance is obtained which is transmitted night after night to those who are receiving the ordinary British broadcasting matter. The danger that might arise from re-diffusion is one that I venture to think ought to be considered and so far as possible guarded against.
I desire, having made those observations about re-diffusion generally, to say a word or two as to our opposition to this particular type of re-diffusion. This is an example of municipal trading carried to the very furthest point, and I desire to say to those who agree with my objection, as well as to those who do not see eye to eye with me, that some kind of municipal trading may be for the public good. It may be necessary that there should be municipal trading in and control of certain public utilities, such as gas, electricity, water, transport, and in certain circumstances coal. A strong case may be made out in every one of those instances for municipal trading, and the mere fact that a public service is carried on by municipal trading does not make it stand condemned; but there is no logic, there is no expediency, there is no case of any sort or kind that may be made out to justify the venture by the county borough of Middlesbrough into the realm of broadcasting.
In the course of two or three days, it might be well for the House to remember, we shall hear again from Middlesbrough, as a depressed area seeking for relief and assistance from other areas that may perhaps be able all the better to manage their own affairs, yet they are asking tonight to be allowed to venture into a realm about which they know nothing at all. It is easy to conceive that as soon as this Bill is given statutory effect there will at once be appointed a Director of Broadcasting, with a complete staff to assist him in that work, and a Broadcasting House for the county borough of Middlesbrough, all of which has to be subsidised, paid for, and maintained by the ratepayers of Middlesbrough, to whom the Middlesbrough Corporation now seek to go into opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) tells me that the Bill provides that nothing will be done in one year that cannot be paid for in the next year. That is an experiment which it is beyond
the wit of man to put into effect. Money is going to be spent at once, and it will be spent in the hope that next year there may be such a return of profit that they will be reimbursed for what has been spent in the present year, as far as it can be balanced. It would be idle for any local authority, however well-managed, efficient and alert it may be, to enter into this difficult avenue of broadcasting and the expenses thereby involved without realising that they are competing with their own ratepayers and that they will suffer what invariably happens when local authorities embark on enterprises for which they are not properly fitted. It is very hard to think of these ratepayers saddled with a heavy liability to meet the demands that will be made upon them by a local authority which will have to face anxious moments of trade, which is not perhaps managed as well as it should be, and to find that very local authority which is governing this depressed area is trying to compete with them in their own businesses, upon the success of which the rates depend.
It may be said that a towns meeting has decided in favour of this proposal. From a telegram I have just received I understand that when there was a public meeting the voting was 65 in favour of the Bill and 62 against it; and that that figure of 65 was obtained because of the votes that were gathered in from certain corporation officials. I do not want to say a word in disparagement of those officials. They are as much entitled to full citizenship as anybody else. When, however, the local authority is seeking to extend its province, to create new jobs and a new department, and to pay more wages out of the ratepayers' pockets, there is a great inducement for corporation employés to vote in favour of the corporation, knowing that they may be among the number selected for the new jobs.
This proposal is condemned by a number of people who are engaged in the manufacture, distribution, supply and hiring of radio parts. In the depression which has existed in this country for some time one of the bright spots has been the radio industry, a new industry which is serving a great demand and has put into employment many people who, but for the radio trade, would have been unemployed. They oppose this proposal
because they know that private enterprise has put radio on a great foundation in this country and that private enterprise has made radio proficient in all ways. Nobody lacks anything in the radio programmes that are distributed to this country, and there is no reason for municipal broadcasting in order to put private enterprise out of business. There has been no attempt before by any local authority to enter into competition with radio makers and broadcasting by the erection or maintenance of their own exchange. This is the first time that a matter of this nature has come before the House, and I venture to ask hon. Members whether they think that Middlesbrough is a local authority which is so much to be admired and which is carrying out its work so efficiently and offering such satisfaction to the harassed ratepayers that it should be allowed to he the basis of this precedent and start this competition with its own local entertainments, cinemas and theatres, which are dependent on private enterprise. These industries are united against such an attempt at municipal trading.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: Can the hon. and learned Member give the name of anybody among either the wireless manufacturers or the entertainment people who have made any opposition to this Bill in the other House?

Mr. LYONS: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. This was not a matter for petition. It is not a matter dealing with a little local industry; it is a matter of fundamental national importance, and anybody who has any interests at all is entitled to leave it to this House, knowing that the House will not shirk its responsibility. The theatrical associations and the manufacturers of radio have said definitely to every body who has considered this matter that they are opposed root and branch to the extension into broadcasting which is now proposed by the Corporation of Middlesbrough.
I think that municipal corporations are entitled to say in some cases and in respect of some commodities that municipal trading is essential and that it has benefited certain branches of the community. But is this the time to take municipal trading to the furthest point, to give to a depressed area the right to enter into this new walk of life, to
speculate with the ratepayers' money, and perhaps to squander it on matters with which they are wholly unfitted to deal? I venture to think that no hon. Member knows of a single case where the individual will be better served than he is now by private enterprise in this matter. It is private enterprise that keeps in employment as many people as are employed in Middlesbrough. The expenses of this service will go as a subsidy to those who are by no means able to manage a new industry, and it will come partly from the best ratepayers in the entertainment industry. I ask the House to vote in favour of the Instruction to delete from the Bill this Part of the Measure which gives to Middlesbrough a right which no other local authority enjoys.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Motion. Although I may mention Middlesbrough and the Socialist party in my speech, it is not because I intend to cast any aspersions, but because I want to give Middlesbrough and the Socialist party by way of illustration. This provision would create a political monopoly control of broadcasting within a prescribed area. Clause 143 provides that the corporation
may publish and advertise programmes of the broadcast matter which it is intended to allow consumers to receive from time to time.
I emphasise the word "allow." It is perfectly plain that the customer will have no selection of his own, that the corporation will have the selection of the programmes, and that the customer will receive only that which he is allowed to receive. The corporation could include or eliminate what it pleased. It could, for instance, permit a broadcast on a political question which was in accord with the views of the party in power in the corporation, and it could ban a broadcast reply. By skilful selection it could give a definite bias to lectures, speeches and addresses. Whether this power would be so employed or not, the very possession of it is contrary to the principles which govern the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is a nonpolitical and non-elected body, and it would be contrary to the best interests of broadcasting.
Partisan political interest, direct or indirect, should be rigorously excluded from broadcasting unless it is included as a matter of general interest with the presentation of both sides, as is the case with the occasional political broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation. There is no guarantee that this balance would not be destroyed by skilful selection if the broadcast were controlled by the political party in power, as it would be controlled in Middlesbrough if this proposal were accepted. This is a very grave objection to Part VII of this Bill, and even an express provision that broadcasts should be transmitted as received would only partially meet the objection. There would still be nothing to prevent the party in power transmitting, say, a broadcast for Soviet Russia, or a defence of political dictatorship for Germany, such as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has foreshadowed as the policy of the Socialist party when it gets a majority in Parliament. I mention this, not because I am concerned to prevent a possible Socialist misuse of broadcasting in Middlesbrough, but because I want to stop any political misuse of the enormous power that the political control of broadcasting must confer. I consider that this objection alone is sufficient to justify the rejection of Part VII.
By this part the Middlesbrough Corporation obtains a virtual monopoly in the sale, hire and maintenance of wireless fittings, such as loud speakers, selectors, etc., to the detriment of many private traders in this great and important industry. Clause 150 provides that
 the Corporation may allow consumers to receive broadcast matter upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon between the Corporation and such consumers.
There is nothing to prevent the corporation dictating that every consumer must buy his fittings from, and have them maintained by, the corporation. Moreover, the corporation need not make any profit. Clause 155 shows that it is only required to see that the business, taking one year with another, is carried out without loss. The unfortunate private trader has to make a profit in order to live. This is a peculiarly objectionable form of municipal trading because it would use, or at least give the power to use, the financial resources and credit of the rate-
payers in order to put the private trader out of business. With or without municipal profit on the business, the effect on the private trader would be much the same.
Turning to Clause 151, it may be argued that the corporation are forbidden to manufacture, but they are not forbidden to assemble parts, and to buy how, when and where they want, either at home or abroad. Again, broadcasting is not a necessity like water supply and drainage, which are essential public services. It is really a luxury and there is no case for municipalising it, least of all in the objectionable way provided for in this Bill. As my hon. Friend has said, Middlesbrough is a distressed area. It will be coming to this House, very properly, for a loan. Why should it undertake now, in these circumstances, a considerable expenditure for the erection of a broadcasting station or stations? Even if there were no other objection to the corporation's scheme it is unnecessary and inadvisable in the straitened circumstances of the district. It is bound to involve either a grant or a loan charge, possibly both, and there is no reasonable guarantee that it will be revenue-producing. I sum up my case in two observations: While the financial aspect is important and sufficient in itself to justify the rejection of this part of the Bill the dominant considerations are two. In the first place, there is the unassailable fact that this proposal places great broadcasting powers in political hands, and thus makes such power liable to serious abuse. Secondly, it would create an unfair municipal monopoly in an important industry where such a monopoly is dictated neither by public interest nor public necessity.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. GRIFFITH: Before I come to the main case I would like to take up one point personal to Middlesbrough which was deliberately raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). He spoke of the Middlesbrough Corporation as one which, perhaps, has not managed as well as it should. The implication in that is undoubted—that it has not done so, and I would like to ask him in what respect he implies that Middlesbrough, under a Conservative and Liberal majority the whole time, has not managed as well as it should. I defy him to find any of the distressed areas
which, under the enormous burden put upon them at the present time, have managed as well. To have more than half their insured population out of work and still to have their rates under 14s., so that it may be a little doubtful whether Middlesbrough can even come under the definition of a distressed area, is a record which might have spared the corporation the sneer which the proposer of this Amendment has chosen to level at them.

Mr. LYONS: My reference to Middlesbrough was not intended in a way of a sneer. It was put forward as a fact, but never intended as a sneer.

Mr. GRIFFITH: May I ask what is the statement of facto A suggestion has been made against the Corporation's management which is very important from the point of view of this Bill, because it implies that here is a corporation which is not fit to carry out these tasks. The hon. Member, without a word to support it, without a single suggestion of where Middlesbrough has fallen short, flings an insult at that Corporation which will be listened to with a great deal of interest by the Conservatives of Middlesbrough, many of whom I know very well. I hope that at some time he may attempt to make some justification for a vague general accusation flung out in this way against a body of people trying to do their best in very hard circumstances. As far as I can make out he was speaking entirely at random, and has no facts to support him, and when he asks, "Have Middlesbrough so well deserved?" he cannot suggest a single respect in which they have not deserved any confidence which this House might choose to place in them. I am very sorry to have been diverted from my introduction, because n this Amendment there is a very serious point which I have to meet—I freely grant that it is something I have to meet, and I shall try to do so; but when a challenge like this is thrown out against a district which I have the honour to represent, and which the challenger has not the slightest desire or intention of supporting by any facts, then I, at least, must take up the challenge on their behalf
I had intended to begin by an apology that on a rather warm night this House should be occupied for a considerable time on a small point in connection with
the great borough I have to represent, but I need offer no apology now, because according to the proposer and the seconder of the Amendment a great constitutional question is raised here. There is going to he some grave danger of the poisoning of the minds of the people of Middlesbrough, because at some critical moment of our nation's history the Corporation may choose to turn off the Home Secretary or somebody of equal importance and turn on Mr. Flotsam or Mr. Jetsam or Henry Hall s dance band. Really, the suggestion seems to me an entirely frivolous one. This power is one which is already possessed by private companies wherever they have taken power to do this sort of thing, and I am really amazed that in theses times, as a question of public policy—I am not talking about municipal trading now—anybody should deliberately say that he would prefer the selection by a quite casual private company of what the people of Middlesbrough shall or shall not hear as against that of the people of Middlesbrough themselves, through their representatives. I venture to say that the substantial Conservative and Liberal majority on the Corporation of Middlesbrough will be very much surprised to hear that they are engaged in undermining the foundations of the State in this way, and that a time will come when red ruin has overwhelmed this nation and we shall look back for its origin to the fatal day when the Corporation of Middlesbrough were allowed to choose programmes.

Mr. LEVY: My objection is that the power should be put into their hands which will enable them to misuse it if they feel so inclined. I have never suggested they would do anything. I started off by saying that I cast no aspersion on Middlesbrough at all; but what I did say was that I objected to them having possession of this power if they wish to abuse it.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I quite appreciate what the seconder of the Amendment has said. He has not attempted, I say it quite frankly, to cast any aspersion on the governing authority in Middlesbrough. He has left that delicate task to the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester. I have no doubt—in answer to his interruption—that beforehand there was some
idea of what parts of this subject were to be dealt with by the proposer and seconder respectively. It may be purely by accident, but in any event I entirely acquit the seconder of any malice against the governing authority of Middlesbrough. But he has still got to face this fact, that if this service develops, as undoubtedly it will in some hands, so that people are enabled merely by switching their loud speaker on to their electric light set, or some other wires, to listen-in to a distant station, the danger he is pointing out will exist in some hands everywhere. The danger is one which comes about with the mechanical development of our civilisation. It may be a danger. What I am asking him to prove, if he can, is that there is a greater danger in this respect in its being done by a municipality rather than being done by some private company. A company might have a particular hate against either Russia or Germany, or the Government of the day, and might choose, by switching over the programme, to eliminate what they did not desire. It is perfectly feasible. The only difference is that if a local authority did it and the people in the district did not like it they would hear about it from the inhabitants. That is a point to be borne in mind.
I must beg leave to consider this particular argument as not really part of the driving apparatus of the proposed Instructions. I think this is merely a kind of mascot which they have put upon the bonnet and which they hope will bring them luck. It is not an essential part of the opposition to Part VII. The proposal of the corporation is one which is intended to give those who subscribe to it a choice of programmes. In the nature of things, and for mechanical reasons, they will begin by giving a choice of the English stations, because those are the easiest to hear. Later on they will be giving a choice up to about five stations. That might include some foreign station, but I should think it is perfectly certain it will not include Moscow, which, from my own private experience, is difficult to get. But the subscribers to this service will have a very wide choice. They will have the power of switching over from one programme to another. It has got to be remembered that no power is sought here by which the Middlesbrough Corporation or anybody who follow their
example can originate any matter. They only turn on or turn off a tap. They cannot let anything come into the glass which is not in the cask. The matter they are going to distribute YU got to be radiated through the ether by no motion of their own before they can do anything with it, and I think the argument that there is some subtle plot on the part of the respectable people promoting this Bill may really be left on one side.
I now get to grips with the really important objection which has been raised, that against municipal trading. That is the real point. I venture to say that if it were not for the objection to municipal trading nothing would have been heard of this instruction. I agree with the Mover and Seconder of the instruction that they are perfectly entitled, although they have nothing to do with Middlesbrough, to raise this matter as a question of general principle—so long as they do not deliberately misrepresent Middlesbrough—because unquestionably what is contained in one Bill may become a precedent for another Bill. Therefore, if hon. Members hold very strong views about municipal trading they are quite entitled to raise this point on the very first possible occasion, and if the Bill happens to be one dealing with Middlesbrough, that is neither here nor there. At least I should have thought so if I had not heard the speech of the proposer. I fully agree, therefore, that this is a proper matter to be raised here, because I know that among hon. Members there are various views on the subject of municipal trading.
The hon. Members who have supported the instruction have said that they are not altogether opposed to municipal trading. Well, I am glad to hear that, because one of the hon. Members whose name is on the Paper in support of this instruction—the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams)—when speaking on the Essex Bill recently, said he objected to every new power which a municipality may be seeking at the present time. That is a view which is sometimes held. On the other hand, I do not think I am misrepresenting hon. Members on the Labour Benches. if I say they have a general feeling in favour of municipal trading, and that, other things being equal, if it were a question between municipal trading and private enterprise they would have no hesitation about
plumping for municipal trading. My view is not either of those. My view, and I believe if the matter were discussed by a full House it would be the view of the majority, is that municipal trading is something which in itself is neither good nor bad, which may have advantages and which may have dangers Members would be inclined to say that every particular instance must be looked at very carefully to see what the merits of that individual 'question were. I ask hon. Members, in discussing this particular Bill, which happens to concern my own constituency—though I would say the same of any other Bill—to apply their minds to the particular proposals before them, not. saying "Up with them" because they are not municipal trading, or "Down with them" because they are municipal trading, but to ask "Is this a particular kind of enterprise which a municipality can properly undertake?" If I could have the whole matter debated upon those lines I should be quite satisfied. I want this matter dealt with on its merits.
This proposal came about in response to a local demand. It was not a sudden brainwave. People suggested it to the municipality. They were people who subscribed to the electrical undertaking of the borough, the corporation of which supply electricity as well as gas in their district. The people wanted to know whether they could have this service, and, therefore, the suggestion came from the people themselves. I have heard all this talk about the grave objections from the interests concerned, whether theatrical or suppliers of wireless goods, but if all these people are to be competed with and to be unfairly treated, they would have a locus standi and could become objectors in due form against the Bill. It is a very extraordinary thing that we have not had any objection of that kind or from any ratepayer. I have a fairly voluminous postbag. It is not only a matter of putting one's proposal in form before a, committee, but, if anything is objected to in regard to Middlesbrough, I generally receive a very large number of letters about it.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is not the hon. Member aware that objection is rather a. costly process?

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. GRIFFITH: If tine hon. Member for South Croydon had listened to the first part of what I said instead of only to the last part, he would realise that I have already agreed with what he is attempting to say. It may be made to cost a lot, but on the other hand it does not cost more than a three-halfpenny stamp to write to the Members for the Middlesbrough Divisions. I generally find that where there is objection I get the full weight of it. People are not at all shy about it, and they let me know. I have not heard the slightest objection to this Bill, either from the ratepayers or from those, who might conceive themselves likely to be adversely affected in their private trade. I think the House understands that in this proposal the municipality would collect and amplify the ordinary programmes that are available to everybody who has a set. When I say "to everybody," I mean that we are to make the programmes rather more available. By amplifying them, we should put them within the reach of people who can only afford a poor quality set and give them a degree of distribution equal to a higher grade set. The corporation would do this upon the payment of a very small sum per week, plus, of course, the cost of the licence and the cost of the service of distribution. After payment of this sum, by plugging into their electric light subscribers would receive, along the electric-light wire, anything that was going. That is the proposal that is going to subvert, not only Middlesbrough but the whole of the State, according to those hon. Members who have spoken before me.

Mr. CAPORN: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the subscribers could receive any one of five programmes of their own selection

Mr. GRIFFITH: At the start it would probably be two or three. We hope to get up to five. The apparatus would include not only a loudspeaker but a selector, and, by the selector, subscribers would be able to choose from among the programmes which the corporation was receiving and amplifying. In justice to those hon. Members who have preceded me, I may say that they are quite right, in a sense, that it would be within the power of the municipality to have a certain amount of choice. The municipality would be the original choosers of the ser-
vices which were being broadcast, and would be in a position to turn off the whole broadcast if they chose.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not perfectly plain that the power of the primary selection is with the corporation

Mr. GRIFFITH: Of course. I have just said so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Therefore, when the hon. Member says that the subscribers have the selection, that selection is only in accordance with the programme that the corporation themselves initiate?

Mr. GRIFFITH: I hope that if the hon. Member for South Croydon interrupts again he will not interrupt by saying exactly what I have been saying. I must presume that his interruptions are only made for the purpose of interruption, and not seriously, if I am to be asked if I mean a thing which I have said in the last three sentences. To the best of my ability I have been endeavouring to do justice to those who have preceded me, but, if I am to be subjected to that kind of interruption, I shall not be encouraged to continue.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think that we are getting too much interruption.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I want to ask, after the explanation that I have given as to what is proposed to be done, to what extent that is municipal trading to which the ordinary arguments against municipal trading ought to apply. It is not as if the municipal corporation of Middlesbrough were branching out into an entirely new kind of activity in something that they have never done before; as if they were to start sealing cheese. They are simply putting forward an ancillary service to a service which is already in their power. They already supply the electric service to the community of Middlesbrough, and this would be a service to be worked along with, and by means of, the electric service that they already supply. To a large extent it does not need a new plant. There will, of course, have to be a plant for actually receiving the broadcast programmes, but the whole of the wiring is already in existence. If any private company started, they would have to do the wiring afresh, unless they were to choose the method of hiring, on our terms, the wires
of the municipality. It is more economical, and more in the interests of the people of Middlesbrough, to use a method of distribution which is ready made, than to embark upon a new course, such as has been employed in other places by putting up a large variety of overhead wires. That is a method which we particularly desire to avoid. If some private company started to place underground wires they would find that impossible, and, if they were to put up overhead wires, those overhead wires would be more likely to get out of order than underground wires which already exist. Therefore, on the grounds of common sense, it is much better to use the wires that already exist. That does not preclude the possibility of a private company being allowed, by licence, to use the wires of the corporation. I shall come to that point in a minute, because it is one of the alternatives made possible by the terms of the Bill, and it must not be forgotten.
The objections to municipal trading fall largely under two heads. People either object to the prospect of the ratepayers being involved in loss and, on behalf of economy, do not want any speculative trade; or else they are afraid of unfair competition with private interests. With regard to the risk to the ratepayers, I have already pointed out that no kind of objection upon that ground has reached me. There is a very real safeguard, in that the company cannot maintain their business out of the rates, but have to make a profit. That is actually one of the statutory provisions of the Bill. The method which one expects would be used to start this business would be the raising of some kind of loan for the additional expenditure, and the loan would have to be sanctioned by the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health would have due regard, as is his duty, to the interests of the ratepayers. If the corporation found that they could make a better and a cheaper job by letting out the distribution to some private company using the wires of the corporation, the corporation would not hesitate to do that.
We want the House to give us the alternative, so that we shall have the power behind us, and so that, if we are put in treaty with those who come to tender to us on behalf of private companies, they will know that they cannot by any ring,
by any previous agreement among those who are making the tenders, put up the price unduly against the corporation, because the corporation will have in the background the reserve power to do the job themselves. It may be said that by mere competition we should secure a low and equitable price, but I am not so sure about that, and those who are promoting the Bill have every reason to suppose that it might be otherwise. At any rate, they would like to have this reserve power, because they feel that it would greatly assist them in their negotiations, even if they never have to use it as the actual means of conducting those negotiations. I think that that is a reasonable attitude, and that, if the matter could be considered by the House without any sort of imaginary dependence upon formulas about municipal trading, the House would find that this is a perfectly reasonable service to allow to be conducted by the Corporation of Middlesbrough or any other corporation that asks for it—that it does not open the door to any great dangers in the State, but that it is in effect purely ancillary to powers which already exist. If the House grants this power, the people of Middlesbrough will probably, owing to the corporation's possession of the lines, owing to their having the means there already and being able to supply those who are already subscribers, and to link up very easily with subscribers, find that this will be the most economical way.
I ask that in any event the House should consider this aspect of the matter. The House is asked to pass an Instruction to a Committee which presumably would be quite capable of examining this matter for itself. To pass an Instruction is rather a large and stringent step, tying the hands of the Committee, and not trusting those who are going to hear the matter in much further detail than we can hope for in the House to come to a correct decision on a Measure which has already been through another place, has been subjected to such observations as were thought proper there, and has emerged unscathed so far. I suggest that that is a reasonable request. I am the last person to desire to make this a political issue for or against municipal trading. I stand here to support a proposal put forward by the Corporation of the Borough for which I am a Member, and if I have at any time spoken with any
heat, I apologise for it. If there are some hon. Members whom I may have annoyed by doing so, it was in response to certain remarks which I may perhaps have misunderstood. At any rate I want to leave the subject by asking most urgently that this matter should be given consideration on its merits, and that, if anybody has any doubts as to this or that detail of the Bill, if it is not a matter of root-and-branch principle, they should at any rate consent to allow it to go to a committee, where all the details and merits will be most carefully considered, without attempting to arrive beforehand at any prejudgment in this House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I rise to oppose the Motion. At the same time I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith), and also, if I may say so, to thank the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for having stimulated him, because otherwise we might possibly not have had the advantage of his opinion in the vigorous way in which he has presented it. I agree with the hon. Member in resenting the observation of the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) with regard to the management of the Middlesbrough Corporation. I cannot, of course, be expected to take part in a discussion as to whether the Liberal or the Tory members of the Middlesbrough Corporation have done best in conducting its affairs. I would only make one comment in that regard, and that is that the town of Middlesbrough has been well conducted in its public life, and that, if there were any improvement to be made, it could only be by having a Labour majority on the Middlesbrough Corporation. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Leicester regarding municipal enterprise, I would say that, if the broadcast relay were not satisfactory to the people of Middlesbrough, the Middlesbrough Corporation would certainly be subject to popular representations on the matter. If a broadcast relay station were erected under municipal control or by municipal sanction in Middlesbrough, and if the programmes submitted were not in accordance with the desires of the people there, I am pretty sure that effective representations would be made to the municipal
authority, and the authority would be asked to mend its ways.
I was interested when the hon. Member for East Leicester said that it might be that there were some phases of life in which municipal enterprise might be of value. Certainly, he was not very committal on the matter. I do not know what would have been the views of Joseph Chamberlain upon it, but 50 years ago he was perfectly positive on the matter. The progressive mind of Toryism, 50 years later, has reached the stage when it may be that in some circumstances, under certain conditions, somehow, somewhere, in some branch of municipal enterprise, it may possibly be advantageous. I really thought we had got beyond that stage, and I feel positive that Members on the benches opposite have progressed further than that. I see that the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester has just returned to the Committee. I am sorry I cannot repeat what I was saying in his absence, but it is his fault, and not mine. Municipal enterprise has justified itself in many respects—in connection with milk, coal, gas, electricity, water and a number of other matters. I remember cases where works departments have had to engage in enterprise to defeat exploiting rings which had been formed round certain branches of work; I remember that direct labour has had to be employed to check the rapacity of some contractors and suppliers of materials for the purpose of assisting to house the people. I should have thought that we had passed the stage which appears to have been reached by certain hon. Members.
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has made his position crystal clear. He stands against any form of municipal activity. I am pleased to know that he has the courage to make his position so clear; he is not like the hon. Member for East Leicester, who says that in certain circumstances, sometimes, it may be possible to do something somehow. The hon. Member for South Croydon has stated that, on all occasions on which he has the opportunity, he will stand in this House and resist municipal authorities having any power to engage in trading. I congratulate him upon his energy and activity, and upon his diversified efforts. If I accused him of being progressive, I am sure I should be sinning
against the standards of ordinary behaviour in political life. Then we have the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), who says that this is not merely to allow the people of Middlesbrough to do certain things. What does he want? Does he want to compel them? That is the alternative.
The purpose of the Bill is very clear. The corporation is desirous of enabling its citizens to be supplied with a broadcast relay, cutting out many of the distressing things which they tell me come over the wireless at times—oscillation, popping, squealing and squeaking. We who have to do our work in the House get very little opportunity to listen to the wireless and are not able to speak with the same authority as those who tune in at night and tell us of their difficulties. It would appear that the proposal of the corporation would give the citizens a cheaper service. It seems to me that those who represent other constituencies can speak with a certain amount of complacency as to what should obtain in a district which has only one industry and which has gone through such terrible times as Middlesbrough. I should say that, if the Middlesbrough Corporation is able to supply a cheaper service, we ought to congratulate them on their initiation of such an idea. Middlesbrough is a distressed area, and I should have thought that, with the despair, the poverty and the encompassing gloom that flows from unemployment, it would be one of the delights of constituencies which are not so affected to render some assistance to that city and give its citizens some relief. That would be a very laudable object with some humanity about it. We ought to be willing, as national representatives, to help them to the best of our ability. The Bill makes it permissive for the Ministry of Health to sanction such a service provided that the venture is not run at a loss.
I understand that Holland was one of the first countries to initiate broadcast relays, and there are about 300,000 who are receiving them, as against 200,000 receiving through ordinary sets. I believe that in this country also the system is extending. A number of private companies are already operating, and there are many thousands of subscribers. I have read that there is no set to buy, and there is nothing to go wrong—no replacement of batteries and valves, and no
amateurish aerials to erect or to pull down. While we are delighted to know how people avail themselves of the excellent service provided by the Postmaster-General, it is a particularly ugly sight to see, at the backs of nearly every house, poles with wires stretched across all higgledy-piggledy. There is nothing orderly about it at all. If something could be done to reduce this ugly feature at the backs of houses, and sometimes at the front, it ought to be encouraged. The system of broadcast relays is not new. It has been tried out by a number of companies, and I am given to understand that a number of companies have applied to the Middlesbrough Corporation to work this broadcast relay. I wonder what the hon. Member for Elland thinks of that, that a private company should be able to promote a similar service to that which the municipal corporation is asking permission to promote and would be able to decide whether a programme should be turned on or cut out, as against the municipal authorities, which would always be subject to a certain amount of popular pressure.

Mr. LEVY: A private company has no politics, and it is not an elected body.

Mr. HICKS: The Middlesbrough Corporation is to be congratulated, and it will get my support. It appears, judging by the attitude of the hon. Member for South Croydon on this Bill and on the question of sky writing, that the House will have to come to a decision whether it intends definitely to limit municipal trading. There are matters in which public enterprise must take the place of private enterprise where it cannot economically carry out services that are expected of it. I should say that broadcasting, with its tremendous educational implications, is one of them and, just as our educational institutions are under public supervision, I should say that broadcasting also is one of those services that ought to come very definitely under our control.
I do not propose to labour the point, as we shall have an opportunity, I presume, when the Bill comes before the House for Third Reading again to discuss the matter. I am uneasy as to the attitude of a number of the younger Tory and Liberal representatives who come to the House of Commons. I am apprehensive regarding their attitude towards
public life generally. Whether their experience is limited or not I do not know, but from our experience of public enterprise and effort, and of the services public enterprise has been able to render with such great efficiency, capacity and economy, there is sufficient evidence to enable us to decide whether or not municipal or public enterprise is a. valuable thing to encourage. We have reached a stage where private interests and the profits arising from those interests bring about efforts against public welfare. If that is the position, it is time the matter was properly and adequately debated on the Floor of the House, and the public generally informed of the attitude and opinions of many Members who appear to think that public enterprise, in whatever branch or direction, should be discouraged to the fullest extent. We of the Labour party associate ourselves with the promoters of the Bill, and hope that the Government will support it. We hope that the House will unceremoniously reject the Instruction which has been moved to delete the Clauses under discussion.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. HALES: I look at this matter entirely from a neutral standpoint. I have great admiration for the inhabitants of Middlesbrough. Although it is about 30 years since I visited Middlesbrough, I know that the inhabitants of that town are the most pushing and go ahead people possible, as they have shown by returning the distinguished hon. Gentleman opposite to represent them. He has placed the case before the House with the greatest ability, and I appreciate what he has said. At the same time, while admitting that Middlesbrough might make a splendid success of this suggested new venture, and that there would be no possibility of any undesirable broadcasting, I think that on the ground of municipal trading only it should be discouraged. It is not' as if Middlesbrough were an isolated district debarred from receiving the broadcasting which all the rest of the country receives. It is like building an extra theatre when a town is fully equipped or an extension of an industry for which there is no necessity.
I am really concerned about the matter. If this sort of thing is developed, we shall have municipal trading in all kinds of businesses with undeniable injury to the
private trader. There is no class of the community at the present time more in danger than the private trader from municipal trading and multiple shops, which is another great menace to their trade. Although this is an object to which I can really see no serious objection when considered by itself, I think it is the thin end of the wedge, the extent of the future development of which no one can foresee. While upon this issue I have no personal objection, I think that, as a general principle, it ought not to be encouraged, and I therefore support the Instruction.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: I think that this is far too important a matter to be introduced merely for an hour or two on a hot Monday evening, and when I heard the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) say that we were debating a small point I was amazed that a Member of the party, who, I think we might say, have always looked after the interests of the private traders in this country, should in this way support so fully and wholeheartedly a willingness to put what has always been up to the present a private enterprise into a municipal trading concern. Though the hon. Gentleman has not had many communications up to the present, I am wondering whether his postbag in a few days may not be very much heavier in view of those who will certainly disagree with his point of view tonight. I well understand that hon. Members on the Official Opposition benches should oppose this Motion. One realises that as a party they fully support a widening of any municipal trading which may be possible. But it is surprising to hear that some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, are in full support of that policy.
This is an absolute innovation. There is no pretence that we are taking a philanthropic view, because we cannot say that it will be cheaper for the poor people in Middlesbrough to spend what amounts to 78s. a year—10s. for the Post Office and 68s. for the corporation—and which they will have to pay in perpetuity to maintain a service which will give them no apparatus and nothing more than a few valves, affording them the privilege, in the first instance, of putting on perhaps one or two stations, and ultimately,
we are told, five stations, those stations being chosen by the corporation. Apparently the Middlesbrough Corporation are out to make money, but they have no capital on which to make money. They must ask the Ministry of Health for approval to a loan. If a community can get well served by private enterprise who have the capital it certainly is not desirable for a corporation, especially where half the people are unemployed, to have to ask approval for a loan in order to get the service installed as a corporation service. I am not definitely opposed to all forms of municipal trading, but I say most definitely that it is far better that any trading for the community which can be well served by private enterprise should not be taken away from private enterprise and given to a municipal interest. Why should the municipality look forward to obtaining 78s. per head of those installing the apparatus and attempting to make profit at the expense of private enterprise? Is it unlikely that the manufacturers and the distributors of radio apparatus in the country will be up in arms against such a suggestion?
What happens in Middlesbrough to-day may happen all over the country tomorrow. What about the large number of people who have obtained employment in this industry during the last few years in the manufacture and distribution of this apparatus, which people can buy. Certainly they could buy it on the hire purchase system at a cost much less than if they paid 78s. a year for it to the Corporation of Middlesbrough. The objections to the Clause can be summarised. Relay broadcasting is not municipal enterprise and there is no reason why it should become so. Any such scheme means very unfair competition with private enterprise. If subscribers take a relay service of this nature on the electric wires they will never bother themselves about special apparatus. In these circumstances it is natural that everyone in the country who is interested in the industry will condemn us if we agree to this Clause in the Bill.
The entertainment industry objects to this part of the Bill on the ground of unfair competition. It should never be part of the duty of a municipality to supply entertainment. They are prevented by legislation from doing so when it has to do with high-class concerts or
theatrical productions, and yet in this Bill the Middlesbrough Corporation seek to collect the most perfect programmes from all over the world and to relay them at about 2½d. per night to their subscribers. What chance has a poor cinema or an old theatre in the various towns of the country to compete successfully against operas and dramatic entertainments if such relays come from all over the world? It is necessary to remind the Committee that a great many English programmes are relaid from abroad—from Radio Paris and other stations.
We are told by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough that there is a very strong local demand for this service, but the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) stated that at a public meeting the proposition was only carried by a majority of three. I should like to know how a very strong demand is shown by that public meeting. This proposal is certainly contrary to the spirit which has established broadcasting in this country. We have been very particular to avoid any Government control of broadcasting. A monopoly was formed which was free from politics, and it was made quite clear that it was perfectly independent. By that means we have obtained well-balanced programmes. In other words, we aim at giving all parties in politics a decent show, and we ensure that a certain cultural element shall appear in the programmes. The management of a municipal relay station will naturally wish to concentrate on entertainments, because they will pay best. The cultural element may not be so attractive and therefore we shall find a tendency to light entertainment.
It may be that on some occasions there will be differences of opinion between a municipality and a Government Department. If a message were sent out on the broadcast by a Government Department the municipality would, under this arrangement, be able to say: "We will not broadcast that, because we are not in sympathy with it." I do not suggest that there will be any difficulty with the Postmaster-General, but there might be an occasion when a municipality would not see eye to eye with a Government Department. I hope hon. Members will not by their votes show that they desire that the constituents of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough should have
on their wireless more and more speeches by mayors. It may be true that the British Broadcasting Corporation programmes are criticised, but they make an honest attempt to give all parties a fair show and to hold the scales evenly. I say without hesitation that we are not so certain that they would have a fair and decent show if relay stations in all parts of the country were in municipal hands. The Postmaster-General is supposed to exercise a sort of fatherly oversight over broadcasting messages and programmes, but it is not possible for him to forecast what will come over from abroad and whether it is suitable for broadcasting until he knows what is sent.
This Clause is a most dangerous precedent, and I trust that it will never be agreed to. It is very difficult to see what is really at the back of the minds of the Middlesbrough Corporation in asking for this power, except that they desire merely to make money at the expense of the community. If we are to have relay stations, and relay stations will no doubt come, let us have them provided by private enterprise, and they will pay, but we are not sure that that will be the case under municipal guidance. Middlesbrough poses to-day as a distressed area and we are very sorry to know that so large a proportion of their population are out of work, but they can find money for embarking upon such schemes as these. The Middlesbrough Corporation are either wishful to exploit this trade, which has been so useful in the interest of employment, or they are wishful to have some powers in the future that will allow the municipality to guide the thoughts of the inhabitants. In the interests of this country the House ought to pass the Instruction to the Committee. I hope that the Postmaster-General will not be cajoled by anything that is said from the official Opposition benches to agree to the passing of the Bill in its present form.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. DENVILLE: It is a pity that this question has been thrown into the political arena and that we cannot discuss it without its being said that we are for or against municipal trading. I do not think that this is a question where
municipal trading should be considered. It is a question that we can discuss on the Floor of the House on its merits alone. Statements have been made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) that there have been no objections from the entertainment industry to the Middlesbrough Bill.

Mr. GRIFFITH: The hon. Member I am sure does not want to misrepresent me. I did not say that no objection had been made to the Middlesbrough Corporation's proposal, because I do not know what communications they have received, but I said that nobody has heard anything against it, and that I have heard of no opposition at all.

Mr. DENVILLE: That is not the point. I have in my hand a statement issued by the Entertainments Protection Association and the Society of West End Managers, a copy of which was sent to every hon. Member.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I have not had one.

Mr. DENVILLE: I expect it met with the usual fate, and went into the waste paper basket. I have no doubt that I am as big a sinner as the hon. Member in that respect, but I can vouch that 600 copies were posted. In this statement they say:
After careful consideration of this matter our associations have come to the conclusion that the precedent is undesirable so far as the entertainment industry is concerned, and express the hope that opportunity will be taken during the passage of the Bill through Parliament for striking out these provisions in their entirety. At the present time the programmes broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation contain a certain proportion of light entertainment matter, and, therefore, do not constitute so serious a form of competition with the theatrical industry, but such competition from wireless exchanges concentrated solely on entertainment matter would be serious indeed.
That is the objection of the entertainment industry to any town or any body of people being granted a licence for relaying wireless programmes. Mine is a much more valid objection than anything I have heard so far, and it is one which I fancy will make the Socialist party think again as to whether they are going to support the Bill or the Instruction. My objection is on the ground of employment. What is going to happen to the 4,721 shops which are selling radio sets, and all the other appliances? What is going
to happen to the many thousands of workers who are now engaged in making radio sets?

Mr. THORNE: It will encourage them.

Mr. DENVILLE: What is going to happen to the factory which is about to open and which will give employment to 1,500 workers? The hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) for whom I have great respect will realise that I do not make statements like this without having some information. If the relay system comes into force in this country it will mean that instead of a wireless set being in each house there will be only a loud speaker and a switch This will be installed by the corporation and the working man will pay 1s. 6d. per week for the use of it. What is going to happen to the makers of valves and wireless sets and all their component parts? My objection is that it will create a great deal of unemployment. We have not to consider this matter from the municipal point of view but whether it is in the best interests of the country and for the benefit of the workers.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: The extraordinary fact to me is that those hon. Members who are opposing the Bill are able to, and probably do, use the most up-to-date machinery they can buy for getting the best programmes the world can provide, and are endeavouring by opposing the Bill to prevent the ordinary working man in a place like Middlesbrough, a necessitous area, getting anything like the advantages which they themselves enjoy. Frankly, I cannot understand the mentality of people who object to the poor ordinary citizen getting any form of amusement which they themselves desire and, in fact, insist on having. Behind this mentality there is a desire to keep the working class down; I do not mean in every respect, but to prevent them getting the ordinary amenities of life which they themselves desire and demand. Why should anyone object to something new, some improvement on an existing system

Mr. DENVILLE: I hope I did not convey the idea that I object to anything new. I object to anything which conies along which creates unemployment at the present time.

Mr. McENTEE: I certainly understood the hon. Member to object to a more simple and cheap system than exists at present; a better system. The ordinary man will be able to get these programmes by running a wire into his house and putting a loud speaker at the end of it. That is an undoubted improvement, and why on earth should any effort be made to prevent those citizens who cannot afford a wireless set under the present system getting a system which is cheap and efficient I cannot understand. Are we to object to these great facilities for amusement and education because they will interfere with the entertainments industry in which the hon. Member is interested? If so we might as well say that we will stop progress in all directions and prevent anything coming along which will interfere with something which exists. I hope the House will not be influenced by that kind of argument.
In regard to the general argument of municipal enterprise, where are you going to stop? This has not been done in Middlesbrough by anybody else. Nobody has so far provided these facilities for the people of Middlesbrough, and the Middlesbrough Corporation now say that they are prepared to provide this service which private enterprise has not attempted to provide. The House is asked to say, "No; we refuse to allow the people of Middlesbrough to have this service. We will wait for ever, or until some day private enterprise wakes up and makes a profit out of it." I hope that the Bill will be carried. I am not very much concerned about the small advance in the realm of a. municipal provision of service for the people. I hope that the municipalities will render more service to the people. It is extraordinary to me that Members should come to this House and oppose anything of the kind. They say, in effect, "Do not provide a good service because it will interfere with private property." That is the only argument against it. No one has said that this service is inefficient or expensive or that it is not badly needed. I hope the House is not going to display a spirit that appears to me to be mean and narrow.

9.16 p.m.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken
has much helped the case which he desired to support. He talked about meanness and narrowness. I do not think it is a very good example for the hon. Member to cast aspersions on the motives of his opponents. There is no occasion for him, in a Debate of this kind, to reflect upon the opinions of his colleagues in this House, who no doubt are actuated by just as good motives as he himself is. I propose to treat this Debate upon the merits without making aspersions against the motives of either side on this question.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not making an aspersion on me now?

Sir K. WOOD: I am, and a very necessary one. I am prepared to give due credit to either side in this controversy without going into the question of motives. If the hon. Member was desirous of obtaining votes he will realise that he went about the worst way for obtaining them in an assembly of this character. As head of a Department I am concerned with this matter simply from the Post Office point of view. I acknowledge the general feeling of the House, that the institution of these wireless exchanges meets a public need. The exchanges enable persons of small means, who cannot afford an ordinary receiving set, to obtain a good reception of a broadcast programme on payment of a small weekly fee.
Apart from the merits of this question tonight I do not take the view, and never have taken the view in my administration at the Post Office, that there should be any distinction made, as regards people who are recipients of a programme on a, wireless exchange—there should be no differentiation made, so far as prohibition is concerned generally, as to the broadcast programme that they receive. In other words I resent the suggestion that it is undesirable for them to receive a programme, we will say, from a foreign country, which I myself with a fairly powerful receiving set can get at my will. I object most strongly to the suggestion that as Postmaster-General I should lay down the condition which has been suggested in some of the speeches tonight, that because there is advertising from some of the foreign stations I should stipulate in a licence that a par-
ticular wireless exchange should not be permitted to broadcast these particular programmes. My own view is—in this I think I am speaking with the full concurrence of the wireless trade and of a variety of interests affected—that if the question of commercial advertising is to be dealt with, as I think it ought to be, from the point of view of broadcast programmes, it ought not to be dealt with by prohibitions of the British Postmaster-General, but ought to be dealt with by general international agreement; and it is on those lines that I am proceeding at the present time.
I want to make it plain that, as far as my administration is concerned, I do not desire to put any unreasonable prohibition upon a number of people who obtain their broadcast programmes in this way. There are now about 100,000 subscribers to these wireless exchanges. They are not a large number; they are about 2 per cent. of the total number of wireless licenceholders in this country. I agree that the number is growing, and it is certainly a matter of importance for this House to watch the progress and the tendencies of a great public force of this character. The matter which the House has to decide tonight is a matter which I desire to leave to them after I have stated the facts. It is whether in the circumstances a corporation should for the first time be given a licence by the Postmaster-General for the time being.
Let me say a few words outside the particular merits of the case in reply to some of the statements that have been made this evening. In the first place, no one must look upon the Middlesbrough Corporation as some "Red" Socialist organisation. It has, in fact, and greatly to its credit, an anti-Socialist majority. This is not a Bill promoted by some secret hand from Russia. An hon. Friend of mine, no doubt under some misapprehension, referred to the record of the Middlesbrough Corporation so far as its public affairs are concerned. I can speak with five years' experience at the Ministry of Health, and I think I speak with the consent of my colleague the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, when I say that I not only know nothing to the detriment of the Middlesbrough Corporation, but that, in view of the tremendous difficulties that confront an area of that kind, it should
be stated that the Middlesbrough Corporation is meeting those difficulties with a considerable amount of fortitude and courage. Therefore, let us dismiss from our minds the idea that this matter is any kind of "Red" plot on the part of the Middlesbrough Corporation. It so happens that it is an anti-Socialist corporation which is asking for the first time that a licence should be given in order that it may establish a relay station.
Certain observations have been made tonight as to what a corporation might or might not do if it received such a licence from the Postmaster-General. I want the House to understand before the Division, without in any way endeavouring to persuade them how they should vote, what are the conditions which I have already laid down so far as these relay stations are concerned. In the first place, no body, whether a corporation or a private enterprise, is allowed under my licence to originate any broadcast whatever. They are not allowed to do that, and they may only pass on what they have received from other stations. Secondly, so far as programmes generally are concerned, I have the same power which I have in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation to prohibit any particular relay. I have never had to use that power in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation so far as I am aware and, as regards the practice and administration of the existing relay stations, I have had no occasion whatever to think of using that power. With regard to the present arrangements and administration of the relay stations now in existence, I have had no complaints from any subscriber as to the nature of the programmes which are relayed, and I speak as one not unmindful, from my postbag, that there are a number of people about who are prepared to make complaints. Thirdly, if the Middlesbrough Corporation were granted this power, they are in no circumstances permitted to receive any payment or consideration for relaying any programme. Therefore, there can be no suggestion that any of these relay stations can receive some sum of money for relaying a continental programme which bears advertising. The position so far as that is concerned is fairly plain.
I made a further condition that no wireless exchange may relay to subscribers
any programme containing political, social or religious propaganda received in English from a foreign station. I did that because I thought it would be a very unfair thing that at a get eral election, if, as has always been the case, there were an agreement between the political parties as to the broadcasts which should be given, anyone should obtain an undue advantage by buying time from a foreign station and having it transmitted over here through one of these wireless relay stations. It may he said that this or that corporation may go abroad and purchase time, as some corporations are doing at this moment, and then by some extraordinary method have it transmitted here, and particularly through the corporation concerned. I do not think that is a very likely possibility, but there is a general condition in the licences I have granted that the service must be carried out to my satisfaction, and I should be perfectly prepared, if the matter is not provided for already, to insert an additional condition, for instance so far as political speeches are concerned, to prevent any danger of that kind. I see no danger myself from that particular 'aspect. Finally, the licences are all subject to termination by six months' notice expiring on or after December, 1936, which is the time at which the present British Broadcasting Corporation licence falls to be considered. In any case, I have the option as Postmaster-General on such termination to take over such undertakings on tramway terms.
I have stated the matter tonight from the point of view of the Post Office. The question of municipal trading is a matter for the House itself. It is only right that I should inform the House that attention was called to this particular matter in a Debate of some length in another place. There they decided it was a proper matter to be left to the Committee, and the Committee of the other House considered this matter, and it is in this form that they decided it should reach the House of Commons. It is also perfectly true to say—and I say it without endeavouring to prejudice the matter one way or another—that no person has petitioned against this particular provision. It may be that the persons interested desire to rest upon the judgment of the House of Commons. On the other hand, there is a well-known procedure by which people who are
damnified, like the wireless trade in Middlesbrough, might petition against the Bill, but that has not been done.
Therefore, the issue which the House of Commons has got to decide tonight is whether or not it will leave this issue to be decided by its own Committee. It may decide definitely and for some considerable time that, in no circumstances, can a corporation be entrusted with the licence of the Postmaster-General to do this work. The Committee of the House could, of course, examine the precedents. There are a variety of precedents which no doubt the Committee may desire to look at, because it is by no means the first time that the House of Commons has decided that a municipal corporation should provide entertainment, for instance. In the great majority of these cases of relay stations, undoubtedly what is provided for the subscribers is entertainment. From the records that are kept, I do not think that a very large number of these relay stations provide any great extension of lectures by various professors or anything of that kind, nor are they disposed, much as the House of Commons may differ from them, to think that political controversy is of general interest to any large number of wireless subscribers. According to very careful records of these relay stations, the majority of listeners, after a heavy day's work, desire to hear some light entertainment.

Mr. WISE: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to add to the list of prohibitions one to the effect that this station may distribute nothing but entertainment matter

Sir K. WOOD: That would be very difficult to carry out and would put a great onus on those responsible. Some corporations might think that political speeches were entertainment, though I think the great majority would come down heavily on the other side. But as I was saying, the great majority of subscribers on a weekday and, it must be admitted, on a Sunday also, desire to have some method of relaxation and the House of Commons has already entrusted corporations with powers to give entertainments, and those powers have not been confined to seaside municipalities. There are many precedents of that kind which a Committee of this House would
desire to examine. If the House decides that this is not an unwise extension of municipal trading my course as Postmaster-General is clear. Once that decision is made I should not pick and choose as to the persons to whom licences are given provided I am satisfied that they are responsible people who will honour and properly carry out the obligations which I have imposed. It is for the House of Commons to decide whether they will prohibit this or whether they will leave it to a Committee of the House to examine all the precedents and decide what is to be done. I have set out the facts and I leave it to the judgment of the House, which is a fair and just tribunal and will take into account the various considerations advanced for and against this proposal.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: As one of those whose names are attached to this Instruction I should like the opportunity of speaking, particularly as one hon. Member opposite devoted a substantial part of his speech to me. We have all been interested in the speech of the Postmaster-General; and we are grateful to him for the valuable information which he has supplied. But the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty tonight, because, whatever the merits of municipal trading, a municipal corporation may be a new customer for the Post Office or for its offspring the British Broadcasting Corporation and as a good salesman the right hon. Gentleman starts off with a mild bias in favour of the Bill. That there was such a mild bias is reasonably clear. On the other hand he gave us a very fair statement. He said that when the Bill was in another place there was no petition against it and that is not surprising. This is not a local issue. It is essentially a national issue, and the proper organisation to appear before a Committee in another place or here is a national organisation. I have not had experience of these Committees upstairs but as far as I have studied their procedure it would appear that a national organisation would have no locus standi before them. Nobody petitioned because nobody was effectively in a position to do so and any reference to that fact has no relevance to the decision which we have to make. That decision must be taken on broad national grounds, and this House and not a Com-
mittee of four Members upstairs is the right place in which to make such a decision on fundamental principles.
Therefore, I hope that we shall not hesitate to make up our minds and to decide definitely one way or the other. The Postmaster-General and at least four other speakers—those who spoke in opposition to the Instruction—seemed to be under the impression that this proposal had something to do with the provision of facilities for poor people. The three gentlemen from the West—the Postmaster-General from West Woolwich, the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) were all under the impression that this is a cheap method of providing wireless. It is not. For 1s. 6d. a week, after allowing for the 10s. licence of the Post Office, one is in a position, on hire purchase terms, to buy an admirable set which will make the listener the master in his own kingdom instead of being a subsidiary in the Kingdom partly represented by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough.
I much regret that I did not hear the speeches of my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Instruction, but I took the precaution of being elsewhere for some refreshment in order to be prepared for a later part of this evening's proceedings. But I understand that they made very reasoned statements which have not been effectively replied to so far. I am grateful to the Postmaster-General for having taken enormous care in this matter, as he does in everything he undertakes. He has taken great care to ensure that there should be the minimum of abuse. He has told us that the corporation will not be permitted to distribute undesirable stuff. But he cannot deprive them of the power of censorship, of the power of suppression, and that point has not been dealt with by him or by any other speaker. There is nothing to prevent the corporation turning off the tap.

Sir K. WOOD: I said that it was one of the conditions of the licence that they must carry out their administration to my satisfaction and that if that clause was not sufficiently explicit I was prepared to insert a new condition that no undue preference in political matters was to be given to one side or the other. My own view is that that condition inserted
in any licence would be sufficient. No one would jeopardise a licence by attempting to infringe it. In making that statement I intend no reflection whatever on the Middlesbrough Corporation who, I am sure, have no such intention.

Mr. LYONS: Would not that put the right hon. Gentleman in the position of having to judge as to what he thought was a proper balance in the programmes for listeners I

Sir K. WOOD: That is an undesirable position into which I might be forced but my experience and common sense tell me that if that prohibition were put into a licence I should never have to use it. The prohibition itself would be sufficient.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am delighted to hear that statement, but it only binds the right hon. Gentleman personally, and I look forward to a time when he will, for the benefit of the country, occupy a more exalted position than he does at present. While I welcome cordially the declaration of his intention we have to realise that no declaration of that kind is binding in perpetuity. But this arrangement will remain in perpetuity and the best way to guard against any dangers in connection with it, is to deprive people of the temptation. It is assumed by our opponents that Clause 155 guarantees that this enterprise would be run without loss but that Clause is only a pious declaration. Every company prospectus expresses the hope that the company will make a profit. When we nationalised the telephones it was on the understanding that we should make a profit. In the last year or so we have made a bit but for a long time we made heavy losses.

Mr. THORNE: And a very good service

Mr. WILLIAMS: Opinions may differ with regard to that. This declaration is an amiable aspiration that they will do their best not to Make a loss. My hon. Friend opposite probably assisted the passage through Parliament of the Railways Act of 1921, which brought into being the "Big Four" and which laid it down that they should obtain a standard revenue. They have never obtained that standard revenue. This Clause is not of the slightest value in guaranteeing against loss, but is merely an instruction that you are to fix your charges at
that level which you believe will ensure you against loss. It sometimes happens, however, that no charge will ensure you against loss, owing to the mismanagement of your concern. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) said that I was opposed to all forms of municipal trading. I never made that declaration. My bias is entirely against municipal trading, and I have no desire to see it established except where it is proved that for some reason nobody else will provide the service efficiently. The hon. Member also said that there were a great many cases in which private enterprise had failed lamentably to provide a service, but he was careful not to quote a single example. I do not know of one. He might possibly have mentioned housing, but it is not private enterprise that has failed there. When Parliament passed the Rent Restriction Act you were bound to create a housing shortage, and you must not blame private enterprise. for that.

Mr. McENTEE: The failure began before the War.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The failure began in 1909, when a very stupid Budget was introduced. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough told us that when this was installed people would have a choice of programmes, a choice of two, with the hope of five later on, but there is not a person in the world who will promise the hon. Member five either in the present or in the immediate or the remote future, and I doubt whether anyone will guarantee him even two satisfactory choices. There was a time when I understood the principles of multiplex telegraphy and how you could send three messages simultaneously over one line, but I have forgotten all that. Here you are sending it along wires with fluctuating currents because they do not keep all their lights on simultaneously, and therefore the technical difficulties are substantial.

Mr. GRIFFITH: In dealing with a technical matter like this, I can only give what the engineers advising the corporation have told them, and their advice is that there is no difficulty.

Mr. WILLIAMS: At any rate, nobody has got five choices yet. Therefore, we will rule the five out, because it is not a proposal which we are authorising to-
night. Is there any public demand in Middlesbrough for this? The hon. Member pointed out the curious experience of the town's meeting at which the Bill was approved. Many of us received a. telegram from a gentleman in Middlesbrough, whom I do not know. He describes himself as Chairman of the Retailers, and I presume he means the retailers of wireless apparatus, and naturally he does not want this because it will destroy a good deal of his trade. Therefore, he is biased, but what he says is not challenged, that 127 people voted when the decision was taken on this part of the Bill. I am authoritatively informed in this telegram that a very substantial proportion of the majority were corporation employés, who turned up as citizens, as they are entitled to do, but voted in a way which they thought, on balance, would suit them best.

Mr. THORNE: The minority could have demanded a poll.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That may have been, but what is the chance on a narrow issue like this of putting the corporation to the great expense of a poll with such a narrow majority, not of the citizens, but rather a biased majority of persons who—I do not blame them—voted for the extension of municipal trading, because every municipal employé thinks it will create more opportunities for promotion. If I were a municipal employé, I should do it myself, but it is art interesting commentary on the value of the public support. My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough is representing a majority of three in Middlesbrough on this issue, whereas there were tens of thousands who rightly did him the honour of supporting him at the election.

Mr. GRIFFITH: None of them communicated with me.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When the Sunday Cinema Bill was before this House, I received some 600 letters, telegrams, and postcards of protest, but not one in favour, yet my constituency was the first to have a poll on the subject in this country, and by two to one they expressed the exactly opposite view. It is an interesting measure of the value of the communications which we receive from our constituents. In a large public meeting in my constituency I told them, when I was being worried with a lot of sense-
less letters, that we had the largest wastepaper baskets in the world here, and that that was where we consigned the bulk of these postcards. Since then I have had very many fewer, and I hand that advice on to any other hon. Member. You must not judge opinions by the number of communications you get.

Mr. GRIFFITH: The hon. Member is judging by the telegram he has in his hand.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has missed the point. He seems to think that because he had no communications there was no feeling. Here was a case where I did not receive a single communication.

Mr. McENTEE: You have one in your hand now.

Mr. WILLIAMS: This was merely a communication stating a fact, in entire contrast with the people who communicate expressing opinions. This gentleman

forwards to me, as constituents do forward, a communication containing valuable information, and I am contrasting that with the great mass of communications which are addressed to us, all written alike, for the purpose of influencing our views. My hon. Friend was saying that he had not had any of that kind, and therefore presumed there was no feeling on the subject, but you must not judge the views of your constituents by the number of communications you receive, because very often you are painfully disappointed at election time in that respect. Those of us who do not like an extension of municipal trading in a particularly undesirable direction will, I hope, go into the Lobby for deleting Part VII of this Bill, and I hope we shall have a large number of supporters.

Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Part VII."

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 48.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
19.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hales Harold K.
Penny, Sir George


Albery, Irving James
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandernan (B'k'nh'd)
Hanbury, Cecil
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolle
Hartland, George A.
Ramadan, Sir Eugene


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Rankin, Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ray, Sir William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Raid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Bateman, A. L.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beaumont, Han. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hackney, N.)
Raid, William Allan (Darby)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ropner, Colonel L.


Braithwaite, Mal. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Broadbent, Colonel John.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gon.H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burnett, John George
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Campbell, Sir, Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ker, J. Campbell
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Karr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Colman, N. C. O.
Leighton, Major S. E. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Conant, R. J. E.
Lindsay, Noel Kar
Scone, Lord


Cook, Thomas A.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Selley, Harry R.


Cooks, Douglas
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lenark, Bothwell)'


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainob'ro)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Culverwall, Cyril Tom
Mebane, William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
MoCorquadale, M. S.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Dawson, Sir Philip
McKle, John Hamilton
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Danville, Alfred
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Doran, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M
Spens, William Patrick


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Han. H. O. R.
Stones, James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Storey, Samuel


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mayhew, Lioul.-Colonal John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf' & Chisw'k)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchason, G. G.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Adrian C.
Train, John


Goldie, Noel 8.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Tryon, Rt. Han. George Clement


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gravel, Marjorle
Nunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gentian, Captain D. W.
O' Donovan, Dr. William James
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hacking, Rt. Han. Douglas H.
Pearson, William G.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Wells, Sydney Richard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Womersley, Walter James


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wise, Alfred R.



Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Withers, Sir John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wills, Wilfrid D.

Mr. Levy and Mr. Lyons.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Malialleu, Edward Lancelot


Asks, Sir Robert William
Harbord, Arthur
Maxton, James


Betsy, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hills, Major Rt. Han. John Waller
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cowan. D. M.
John, William
Price, Gabriel


Dagger, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rea, Walter Russell


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Denman, Hen. R. D.
Lansbury. RL Mon. George
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Elmley, Viscount
Leckle. J. A.
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Luau, William
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Inca)



Greenwood, Rt. Mon. Arthur
McEntee. Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THENOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Kingsley Griffith and Lieut.-


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Commander Bower.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Forestry Fund.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £299,900, be granted for the said Service."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. —[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Ten o'Clock.